IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 36722 of 2002(V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MESSRS. PEEKAY RE-ROLLING MILLS PVT.LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING CONSUMER NO.HTB 24/3288 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, K.E.MOIDU. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1TOR3 SRI. P BHASKARAN (ADV.COMMSR.) SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, ALONG WITH OP NO. 5136 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.36722/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE INSTALLATION OF METERING EQUIPMENT. P2:- COPY OF THE TEST REPORT OF VARIOUS METERING EQUIPMENTS DT. 26.11.96. P3:- COPY OF THE TEST REPORT OF VARIOUS METERING EQUIPMENTS DT. 18.7.97. P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM DY. CHIEF ENGINEER DT. 29.11.02. P5:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY PETITIONER TO CHAIRMAN OF BOARD DT. 29.1.02. P6:- COPY OF THE DEMAND ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 2.12.2002. P7:- COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DT. 28.11.02. P8:- COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DT. 28.11.02. P9:- COPY OF THE OMVPOCE FPR THE ,PMTJ PF DCE,BER 2002. P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR. P11:- COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED TO THE COUN TER FILED BEFORE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR. ANNEXURE A1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE WITH DUE ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE COUNSELS. A2:- COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KOZHIKODE. A3(a):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE TELEPHONE CALL. A3(b):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE TELEPHONE CALL. A4:- COPY OF THE MESSAGE RECEIVED ON 21.12.02. PA5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE TO BE SERVICE ON THE STANDING COUNSEL DT. 21.12.02. A6:- COPY OF THE MAHASSAR PREPARED BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES. A7:- COPY OF THE FIR DT. 29.12.02 A8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE 3RD RESPONDENT. A9:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. A10:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.12.01 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. A11:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE EXPERTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER DT. 24.12.02. A12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 24.12.02 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.Nos.36722/2002 & 5136 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been proceeded against by the respondents in respect of his electrical installation bearing consumer No.HTB 24/3288, on the allegation that the meter was defective since the current transformers were showing a higher ratio and therefore, the machine was not recording consumption correctly. It resulted in issue of Exts.P4 and P6 orders. In Ext.P4 it is stated that on inspection of the premises of the petitioner, it was noticed that he was extracting electrical energy illegally amounting to theft of energy and his service connection is disconnected in accordance with Clause 43 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990. Ext.P6 is the demand for consequential arrears of electricity charges. 2. In view of the dispute regarding the correctness of the meter, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to get the issue resolved. Pursuant thereto, after getting the meter examined by experts, the Commissioner filed a report to the effect that there was no defect in the meter. The meter was 2 taken to the Transformers and Electricals Kerala Ltd., where also the tests conducted proved that there was no defect in the meter. The matter was also looked into by the Chief Electrical Inspector, who also opined that there was no defect in the meter. In view of the said circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. I do so. If, pursuant to the demand, any amount has been paid, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a month. Exts.P4 and P6 in O.P.No.5136/2003 are consequential orders, which are also liable to be quashed. I do so. The original petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ============== O.P.Nos.36722/2002-V & 5136 of 2003-J ============== J U D G M E N T 9th January, 2009