IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 40696 of 2003(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MAGNUM CREPS MILLS, MANGANAM PO, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER C.G.ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APTS, KERALA ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALLAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION K.S.E.BOARD, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DIST. R1 TO 4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 40696 of 2003(T) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 4522/76 DATED 5.1.78 HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P2. COPY OF INVOICE NO.13593 DATED 28.4.03 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.5.03 IN O.P. 15130/03 HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P4. COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.5.03 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5. COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.6.03. EXT.P6. COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.03. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 40696 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Crepe Mill availing of supply of energy from the 1st respondent. In this writ petition, the challenge is against Exts.P2, P4 and P6, by which the petitioner is called upon to remit an additional amount of ` 2,66,298/-. According to the petitioner, since the electricity consumed by the petitioner's establishment has already been correctly charged and the amounts paid, there is no justification for the said demand. It is also their case that the meter was wrongly recording the energy consumed and if so, demand should have been made by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Electrical Energy framed by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. It is stated that without adopting the above method, he has been called upon to pay twice the bill amount. It is stated that, therefore, not only the demand by Ext.P4 is erroneous but the appellate order Ext.P6 is also illegal. 2. However, from the affidavit filed by the respondents WPC No. 40696/03 :2 : and the contents of Ext.P6 appellate order, what emerges is that, on inspection of petitioner's establishment on 7/4/2003, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board found that connection was effected through a mechanical energy meter of ratio 3x100/5A and using 3 nos 200/5 ACT's. It is stated that, in this type of connection, the recorded consumption of the energy meter will be only half of the actual consumption and hence the reading is to be multiplied by '2' to get the actual consumption. It is stated that, on verification of the office records of Puthupally Section, it was observed that the petitioner's firm was billed only for the recorded consumption and not for the actual consumption by multiplying the recorded consumption into two. According to the respondents, it is only to realise the actual amount due that they have issued the impugned proceedings. 3. There is no affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit and on the materials produced and from the contents of the impugned orders, it is obvious that on account of an inadvertent mistake or error, there was short levy and it is that amount which is sought to be realised from the petitioner. If that be so, not only that the respondents are entitled to realise the amount from the WPC No. 40696/03 :3 : petitioner, but also the provisions of Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Electrical Energy has no role to pay. According to the respondents, out of the amounts now demanded, petitioner has already paid an amount of ` 1,00,000/-. Therefore, respondents are entitled to realise the balance amount due. 4. Having regard to the facts as highlighted in the writ petition and also from the submissions made, I direct that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the balance amount due in five equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be paid along with the bill payable in the month of March, 2011 and the subsequent instalments will be paid along with the bills of the succeeding months. Subject to such payment, coercive action shall not be initiated against the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp