IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23944 of 2003(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.M.PAUL, MANAGING PARTNER, GRANITES INDIA, KURUPPUMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. MR.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER, SMT.REHANA SHUKKUR, MR.MANSOOR.B.H, MR.REFEECK CHENNARA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KURUPPUMPADY. 2. SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KURUPPUMPADY. 3. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 4. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY MR. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23944/2003-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 14/08/2002 IN O.P. NO. 23470/2002(R) OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 09/07/2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/07/2003 SENT BY R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.23944 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the managing partner of a firm. 2. The firm was availing of supply of electricity with consumer No.3410. Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected their premises on 16.7.2002 and one of the three phases was found to be not working. Thereupon they issued a bill demanding payment of Rs.32,491/-. The bill was challenged before this court in O.P.No.2370/02. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, directing the petitioner to move the Electrical Inspector and the Electrical Inspector was directed to hear the petitioner and pass orders in the matter. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Electrical Inspector and the Electrical Inspector found the meter faulty, in as much as it was showing error in recording WP(c).No.23944/03 2 actual consumption. The Electrical Inspector concluded that 61,0048 meters escaped from billing for a period of six months. On the above conclusion, Electrical Inspector issued invoice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued Ext.P2 bill, under the cover of Ext.P2(a) letter. It is challenging Exts.P2 ad P2(a) this writ petition is filed. 4. Petitioner submits that Exts.P2 and P2(a) are illegal. According to the petitioner, the Electrical Inspector could not have quantified the dues, and that the petitioner should not have made liable for any further amount. 5. Admittedly, the conclusion of the Electrical Inspector was that the meter was faulty. If that be so, going by Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it was perfectly within the competence of the Electrical Inspector to quantify the due and issue Ext.P2. On merits, having regard to the findings of the Electrical Inspector, this court will not be justified in holding that Exts.P2 and P2(a) are illegal for any reason. 6. It is noticed that, while granting stay, this court by WP(c).No.23944/03 3 order dated 28.7.2008 directed that the petitioner shall remit an amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is directed that, if payment is made as above, balance will be permitted to be made by the petitioner in three equal monthly instalments along with the regular bills. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/