IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 22755 of 2000(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. PANACKAL ICE AND COLD STORAGE, PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER – P.J. SEBASTIAN, S/O. JOSEPH, PANACKAL HOUOSE, CHETHY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PATTANAKKAD. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHERTHALA – IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DT. 30-8-2000 IN C.M.P.NO. 41823/2000. ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & R2 SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & R2 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R.1 TO 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 22755/2000. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DT. 15-1-1999. EXT.P2 INVOICE DT. 15-2-1999. EXT.P3 DO. D5. 15-3-1999. EXT.P4 DO. DT. 15-12-1999 EXT.P5 DO. DT. 15-2-2000. EXT.P6 DO. DT. 15-4-2000. EXT.P7 COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P8 INVOICE DT. 10-5-2000. EXT.P9 REPRESENTATION DT. 20-5-2000. EXT.P10 NOTICE DT. 2-6-2000. EXT.P11 REPRESENTATION DT. 12-6-2000. EXT.P12 APPEAL DT. 22-8-2000. EXT.P13 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 14782/2000 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R1(a) COPY OF SITE MAHAZAR DT. 8-5-2000. EXT.R1(b) REPRESENTATION DT. 24-8-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 22755 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P7 order and Ext. P. 8 demand for arrears of electricity charges on the ground that two phases of the energy meter installed in the premises of the petitioner were not working. The petitioner's contention is that since Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 stipulates that if the Electricity Board or the consumer has a case that the energy meter is not working properly, recording higher or lower consumption than it ought to have, the aggrieved party has to seek reference to the Electrical Inspector, without which the Electricity Board cannot demand arrears of electricity charges on the ground that the meter was not recording consumption of energy correctly. 2. The question as to whether the Electricity Board can, without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector as provided in Section 26(6) demand arrears of electricity charges, was considered by me with reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.Nos.26123, 27988 & 29518 of 1999 and I had held that without reference to the Electrical Inspector as provided in Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, no arrears could have been demanded. The ratio of that decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, following that judgment, I quash Exts. P7 and P8. The original petition is allowed as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/