IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35611 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- P.N.SASEENDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT PUTTINGAL PARAMBIL, KANGARAPADY, VADAKODU PO, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHY BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, ALUVA ERNAKULAM - 680001 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KSEB, THEVAKKAL, ERNAKULAM 682 310. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35611 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P10 order passed by the Consumer's Grievance Redressal Forum, Central Region, Ernakulam, Ext.P11 order passed by the State Electricity Ombudsman and Ext.P12 statement and Ext.P13 invoice issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSEB' for short) are under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The petitioner is conducting a small scale industrial unit under the name and style 'M/s. Peeyeness Industries'. The said unit was established after availing financial assistance from the Kerala Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KFC' for short). For failure to repay the loan in time, the petitioner's industrial unit was taken over by the KFC on 26.11.1996. While the unit was in the possession of the KFC, the KSEB issued an invoice demanding payment of the sum of Rs.43,458/-. The petitioner challenged the said demand by filing O.P. No.27671 of 1999. A learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner files an objection to the demand made in the said invoice within two weeks from the date of the judgment, the WPC No.35611/2010 2 competent authority shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon within one month, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The learned single Judge also directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the electricity charges due as on the date of the judgment, the electricity connection shall be restored to the petitioner's industrial unit. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.A. No.31 of 2004. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 9.1.2004, a Division Bench of this Court modified the judgment of the learned single Judge and directed that the petitioner need pay only 50% of the amount due on the date of demand and not on the date of the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, namely 10.12.2003. Pursuant to the said direction, the second respondent heard the petitioner and passed Ext.P5 order dated 27.1.2007. The second respondent issued three directions. The operative potion of Ext.P5 order is extracted below for easy reference. “(1) To assess the fixed charges for 6 months from the date of disconnection as per clause 34(d) of conditions of supply. (2) Fixed charges for the door lock period ie from 11/96-11/97 shall be realised from the consumer. (3) The dismantled service was effected to the WPC No.35611/2010 3 consumer as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court in W.A. No.31 of 2004 dt. 9.1.04. Since the service was dismantled and fixed charge for 6 months charged, the service given to the consumer is treated as a new connection, all charges applicable for a new connection shall be adjusted from the amount remitted by the consumer as per the above judgment and balance if any, after adjusting all dues due as mentioned above and as per B.O. cited vide reference (3) may be adjusted or realized as the case may be. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner paid over the amounts payable to the KFC and got back possession of his industrial unit. This was in sometime October, 2003. Pursuant to Ext.P5 order, the Assistant Engineer of the KSEB issued Ext.P6 invoice demanding the payment of Rs.1,14,064/- and surcharge. The petitioner was called upon to pay the said amount before 12.3.2007. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order and Ext.P6 invoice, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7833 of 2007 in this Court. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in that writ petition, the petitioner remitted the sum of Rs.77,355/- on 3.4.2007. W.P.(C) No.7833 of 2007 was heard and disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment delivered on 3.12.2007. By the said judgment, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the fixed charges was rightly demanded for six months from the date of disconnection. The second direction issued by the second WPC No.35611/2010 4 respondent to levy fixed charges from 11/96 to 11/97 was set aside. The learned single Judge also upheld the direction issued by the second respondent in Ext.P5 order that the electricity supply to the petitioner's unit that was restored in the year 2004 (24.1.2004) will be treated as a fresh connection. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge directed the third respondent herein to revise the bills limiting the demand of fixed charges for six months from November 1996. The third respondent was also directed to adjust the payments made by the petitioner towards the various invoices by treating the connection given in 2004 as a new connection. The learned single Judge also directed the petitioner to produce details of the demands made by him before the third respondent and further directed that on the petitioner producing details of the payments, the payments shall be adjusted, the liability recomputed and a detailed statement given to the petitioner within thee weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment along with receipts evidencing payment. 5. Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Thevakkal issued Ext.P9 invoice demanding payment of the sum of Rs.1,96,214/-. Aggrieved thereby, WPC No.35611/2010 5 the petitioner moved the Consumer's Grievance Redressal Forum, Central Region, Ernakulam. Before the Consumer's Grievance Redressal Forum, the KSEB filed a statement as per which the demand was scaled down from Rs.1,96,214 to Rs.1,38,964/-. By Ex.P10 order, the Consumer's Grievance Redressal Forum directed the petitioner to pay the said amount. It however directed that no interest or surcharge shall be levied for the unpaid amount, if any, during the period the petition was pending before the Consumer's Grievance Redressal Forum. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the State Electricity Ombudsman. By Ext.P11 order passed on 29.10.2010, the State Electricity Ombudsman directed as follows: 1. Credit has to be given to Rs.6142/- paid in March 2004 and Rs.5580/- paid in April 2004 by the consumer and the arrears and interest payable are to recalculated. 2. The Appellant shall be liable to pay interest for the defaulted amounts only up to January 2008 as shown in the demand notice dated 3.11.2009, duly revised on 28.1.2010 as per CGRF order, since the respondent had miserably failed to follow up the matter by providing a detailed statement on the amounts outstanding to the petitioner within 3 weeks as specified in he judgment of the Hon: High Court on WP(C) 7833/2007 dated 3.12.2007. 3. The respondent shall issue a revised final WPC No.35611/2010 6 statement of arrears and the demand notice to the appellant as per the directions given above within 15 days from the date of this order. 4. If the consumer fails to pay the arrears in full or in mutually agreed installments, the respondent may initiate actions such as disconnection, dismantling, revenue recovery etc. as per rules.' 6. The State Electricity Ombudsman thus gave a substantial relief to the petitioner. Thereupon, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Thevakkal issued Ext.P12 detailed statement accompanied by Ext.P13 invoice wherein he demanded payment of the sum of Rs.1,12,464/-. This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging the orders passed by the Consumer's Grievance Redressal Forum, the State Electricity Ombudsman and Ext.P12 statement and Ext.P13 invoice. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the impugned orders/demands/invoices are not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. 7. I heard Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.P.Thajudheen, learned standing counsel appearing for the KSEB. By Ext.P8 judgment this Court had upheld Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent except as regards WPC No.35611/2010 7 the direction therein to levy fixed charges during the period from 11/96 to 11/97. Therefore the liability of the petitioner to pay fixed charges for six months from the date of disconnection namely 6.10.1998, cannot be disputed. Likewise, this Court also upheld the direction in Ext.P5 that the electricity connection which was restored on 24.1.2004 shall be treated as a new connection. In other words, the petitioner became liable by virtue of Ext.P5 order and Ext.P8 judgment to pay charges applicable to a new connection. By Ext.P5, the second respondent also directed that the charges payable for a new connection can be realised by making adjustments from the amounts already remitted by the petitioner. In other words, the payments made by the petitioner towards the energy charges after 24.1.2004 have to be adjusted against the charges applicable to a new connection. The petitioner has no case that his industrial unit has not consumed electrical energy as estimated by the respondents. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that challenge to the demand made in Ext.P12 statement and P13 invoice is without any merit. The petitioner has not been able to show that the payments made by him have not duly credited. As a matter of fact, Ext.P12 statement discloses that credit was given to Rs.77,355 WPC No.35611/2010 8 paid by the petitioner on 3.4.2007. Besides this credit was also given to Rs.6142/- paid on 16.3.2004 and Rs.5580/- paid on 3.4.2004 pursuant to the directions issued by the State Electricity Ombudsman in Ext.P11 order. Further the State Electricity Ombudsman had in Ext.P11 order directed that no interest shall be levied on the unpaid energy charges since the KSEB did not issue a statement within three weeks from 3.12.2007. The State Electricity Ombudsman has in Ext.P11 directed that interest shall be levied on the revised demand only up to 31.12.2007. In my opinion, such a direction happened to be issued on the presumption that the KSEB and its officers failed to furnish a detailed statement to the petitioner, as directed by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy thereof. The petitioner had not pleaded or proved before the State Electricity Ombudsman that he had produced along with the certified copy of Ext.P8 judgment, receipts evidencing the payments made by him. In view of the specific direction in Ext.P8 judgment, the respondents were bound to furnish a statement to the petitioner only on the petitioner producing a copy of the judgment along with receipts evidencing the payments made by him. In the absence of any pleading or proof to WPC No.35611/2010 9 that effect that the petitioner had complied with the said direction by producing copies of receipts evidencing the payments along with a certified copy of the judgment immediately after Ext.P8 judgment was delivered, such a direction should not really have been issued. Though the said direction is favourable to the petitioner, it has not been challenged by the KSEB. In such circumstances, I hold that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the impugned orders/statements/invoices. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the respondents shall afford the petitioner an opportunity to pay the amount demanded in Ext.P13 invoices in four monthly installments commencing from 1.2.2011. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest at the statutory rates on the amount demanded in Ext.P13 invoice. If the petitioner does not pay the instalments in time, it will be open to the respondents to take steps to recover the same and to disconnect the electricity supply. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.35611/2010 10 WPC No.35611/2010 11