IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22891 of 2004(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.MATHEW & SONS, PANNIVELIL BUILDINGS, ERANJAL ROAD, KANJIKUZHY, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 004, REP: BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CYRIAC MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VAIKOM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, ETTUMANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ETTUMANNUR. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 22891/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.17.10.2000 FROM THE M.G. UNITERSITY. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.30.6.99 TO R4. P3. COPY OF THE REVISED BILL DTD.5.12.2000 BY R3. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.7.2002 OF THE CDRF, KOTTAYAM. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.2.5.04 BY R2. P6. COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER DTD.3.7.2004 BY R3. RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS R3A. COPY OF THE METER READING REGISTER. “B. COPY OF THE SPOT BILL. “C. COPY OF THE LETTER BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. Sdk+ ///True Copy/// P.A. To Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.22891 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction, maintenance and repair of buildings, on contract basis. They undertook certain work on behalf of the Mahatma Gandhi University at their campus at Athirampuzha, in Kottayam District. For the purpose of construction, they obtained an electricity connection from the Kerala State Electricity Board. According to the petitioner, as evidenced from Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University, the entire work was completed and the site in question was handed over to the University by the petitioner on 30.6.1999. Thereupon, according to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 letter on 30.6.1999 requesting the 4th respondent to disconnect the electricity connection given to the petitioner at the construction site. About one-and-a-half years later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 bill for an amount of Rs.65,468/- alleged to be charges towards electricity consumed in the said electricity connection for the period from October, 1998 to October 2000. On receipt of the same, the petitioner raised objections pointing out that the petitioner had requested for disconnection on 30.6.1999 and, therefore, they are not liable to pay electricity charges in respect thereof subsequent to that date. The 3rd respondent thereupon issued a revised bill directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.23,237/-. The petitioner challenged 2 the same before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF), Kottayam, as O.P.No.876/2000. That complaint was returned to the petitioner by the CDRF directing the petitioner to approach the next higher authority by invoking the appellate powers under Clause 48 of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who, after hearing the petitioner on 12.2.2004, passed Ext.P5 order confirming the demand by Ext.P3, as also the power charges for the period from January 2001 to July 2001 in addition to the fixed charges for six months after disconnection. The same was issued on the premise that there was again consumption of electrical energy in the premises, as is evident from the metre readings. The connection was disconnected only in July 2001. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P6 demand letter dated 3.7.2004 was issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.75,481.70, which includes surcharge and electricity charges for the period from January 2001 to July 2001 as also fixed charges for January 2002 and surcharge thereof. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the records and files leading to Exts.P3, P5 and P6 and quash Exts.P3, P5 and P6, by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; (b) Declare Clause 32(e) of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by 1st respondent, as illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional; (c) Strike down Clause 32(e) of the Regulations Relating to Conditions 3 of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by 1st respondent and levy of surcharge/interest at the rate of 24% per annum imposed thereunder, on the petitioner by Exts.P3, P5 and P6, by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; (d) Grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this (sic) proceedings.” 2. The specific contention of the petitioner is that on 30.6.1999 Ext.P2 letter was issued to the Junior Engineer, Electrical Section, Athirampuzha, requesting that the power connection given to the petitioner may be disconnected since the work in the University campus had been completed on that day. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no electricity charges are payable by the petitioner in respect of the connection subsequent to 30.6.1999. 3. With the help of the counter affidavit filed, the 3rd respondent would stoutly oppose the contentions of the petitioner. According to the 3rd respondent, Ext.P2 was not received in the office of the Junior Engineer and, therefore, there is no occasion for the officials of the Board to disconnect the power supply. It is further stated that going by the metre reading register, there was consumption of electricity in the particular connection, in respect of which only, electricity charges, surcharge etc. have been demanded from the petitioner. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner had completed the work in the University campus in January, 1999. If that 4 be so, the petitioner had absolutely no necessity to continue the power connection in the premises of the University, since that would be of absolutely no use to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have filed Ext.P2 seeking disconnection. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent would state as follows: “5. It is submitted that the consumer No.3612 was issued to the petitioner for construction purpose at the university campus by the respondents. These respondents have not been informed about the handing over of university building to M.G. University by the petitioner. The Ext.P2 produced by the petitioner, was not received by the respondents on 30.6.99. The averments in the petition that 5th respondent received the letter for disconnection on 30.6.99 is not correct and strongly opposed by these respondents.” They have not categorically stated that they have not received Ext.P2 at all. Further in Ext.P5 order also, it is specifically stated that the petitioner has raised a contention that he had given a request to disconnect the supply on 30.6.1999. Nothing whatsoever is mentioned in Ext.P5 regarding that contention either way. Of course the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that under clause 45(c) of the of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, any notice issued by the consumer to the Board shall be deemed to be duly given if addressed in writing to the Asst. Engineer/Asst. Executive Engineer of the Board or his higher officers as the case may be and delivered by hand and acknowledgement obtained or sent by registered post. It is pointed out by the standing counsel that the petitioner has not produced any such acknowledgment, which should be held against the petitioner in so far as his contention is that he had 5 submitted Ext.P2 request for disconnection by hand. At the same time, Ext.P5 order states that the petitioner had taken a contention that he had given a request to disconnect supply on 30.6.1999. Absolutely no finding has been entered in Ext.P5 in respect of the same. It cannot also be denied that the petitioner after completing the work on the site has no use whatsoever of the electricity connection. Since he had no access to the site where the connection was given, which was within the control of the University, he could not have consumed any electricity from that connection also after 30.6.1999. By Ext.P1 certificate, the University has also certified that the petitioner had completed the construction work at the University campus and handed over the site by 30.6.1999. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that a via-media course has to be adopted in this case. In compliance with the interim order dated 18.8.2004 the petitioner has already paid Rs.25,000/- towards demand. Original amount demanded from the petitioner was revised as per Ext.P3 revised bill for an amount of Rs.23,237/-. In view of the same, payment of Rs.25,000/- should be accepted by the respondents as in full and final settlement of the amounts due from the petitioner in respect of the connection in question. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 6 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.22891 of 2004 ================== J U D G M E N T 15th September, 2009