IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22924 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.R.NARAYANAN, MANAGER, YAMAMA ICE & SEA FOODS, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS, K.S.E.B., KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SECTION, BEACH, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22924 OF 2009 (I) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. In respect of an Ice factory at Chavakkad, of which the petitioner is the Manager, electricity is supplied under LT IV tariff with Consumer No.1614/MTA. It is stated that on 5/1/2005, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected their premises and prepared Ext.P1 mahazar, which indicates that they found signs of energy theft. Based on the inspection and the mahazar, by Ext.P2, demand was raised on the petitioner for a sum of Rs.5,43,925/-. 3. Petitioner submits that simultaneously, the respondents also initiated prosecution against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. The case was chargesheeted as CC 509/05. On conclusion of trial, by Ext.P3 judgment rendered on 11th of April, 2008, learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner finding that there was no proof of theft of energy. Meantime, against Ext.P2, petitioner had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who passed Ext.P4 order, WPC 22924/09 :2 : the relevant portion of which reads as under: On going through all the above stated facts there is no evidence that theft is carried out or deliberate tampering is made on the meter. As there is no solid proof to establish theft, the consumer should not be penalized and penal billing to be avoided. But after the installation of tamper free new electronic meter the recorded consumption for some of the months had increased slightly high to the average of 28268 units per month on the higher side. On a logic calculation this can be taken as the maximum consumption during the period of defective mechanical meter to a cumulative consumption of 28268 x 6=169608 units for six months where as the recorded consumption was 150165 units. The consumer may be billed to remit the difference of 19443 units. Based on the above said details and findings, the penal bill issued to the consumer is to be revised to realistic figures. Hence it is hereby ordered that the penal bill issued to the consumer is to be revised for a consumption of 19443 units at normal rate. Due credit may be given to the amount already paid and the balance to be adjusted in future bills. 4. Pursuant to Ext.P4, fresh demand for Rs.68,536/- has been served on the petitioner as per Exts.P5 and P6. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 to P6. 5. From the mahazar, it is evident that what is alleged is theft of energy. Both in Ext.P3 judgment rendered by the Criminal Court and Ext.P4 rendered by the appellate authority, petitioner has been exonerated of the charge of theft. If that be so, petitioner could not have been penalised, based on a logical WPC 22924/09 :3 : conclusion that is seen to have been arrived at in Ext.P4, the appellate order. 6. In my view, for the aforesaid reason, the impugned proceedings are liable to be invalidated, and I do so. It is stated that the amount demanded as per Exts.P5 and P6 has been paid by the petitioner. If that be so, necessarily the amount remitted shall be given credit in the future bills of the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp