IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 27966 of 2004(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.GEORGE, KIZHAKKEKKUTTU HOUSE, KURUMPANADOM P.O. CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ANIMON A. JOHN SRI.SEBASTIAN VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHANGANACHERRY. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).27966/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.111 FOR RS.2117/- DT.10.7.00 EXT.P1(A):-TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.2052 FOR RS.1629/-28.8.00 EXT.P1(B):-TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.85994 FOR RS.1574/- 16.11.00 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.70511.DT.12.6.01 EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DT.19.6.01 EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF MINUTES 22.6.01 EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 26.8.03 EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT.7.10.03 EXT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DT.11.3.04 EXT.P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.20.3.04 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 27966 of 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The petitioner was provided with an electric connection under the Domestic Tariff at his house. During the year 2000 the petitioner carried out some additional constructions in the premises. Till March 2000, the billing of the petitioner was done based on “provisional invoice system” (slab system), wherein the petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs.201/- per month corresponding to provisional consumption fixed at 155 units per month. From March 2000 onwards the 1st respondent Board introduced “spot billing system” in the area concerned. When it is noticed that the petitioner is using electrical energy provided under the domestic tariff for construction purposes, the authorities had issued Exts.P1, P1(a) and P1(b) bills charging him under tariff LTVII-A. The petitioner was also issued with Ext.P2 invoice demanding an amount of Rs.15,795/- by way of penalty with respect to the unauthorised usage. On the basis of an appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, the matter was reconsidered, and through Ext.P4 Order he was exonerated from the liability of penalty. In W.P.(C).29766/04 2 the meanwhile, against Ext.P1 series bills, the petitioner had approached the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. But pursuant to a judgment of this Court regarding maintainability of disputes pertaining to correctness of Electricity bills before that Forum, the matter was referred to the decision of the 3rd respondent, the Executive Engineer. Ext.P5 is the order issued by the 3rd respondent after considering the appeal. It is found that the total connected load allowed at the premises was only 600 Watts, whereas the petitioner was using unauthorised additional load to the tune of 2KW, for purposes other than domestic. Hence the demand raised under the changed tariff of LTVII-A was found to be in order. Eventhough petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent in further appeal, the earlier decision was confirmed by virtue of Ext.P6 order. Thereafter the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 by way of review to the 2nd respondent, mainly highlighting grievance that the continued imposition of charges under LTVII-A tariff, even after the petitioner submitted regularisation application with respect to the additional load, is not sustainable. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent in this regard. The 2nd respondent found that the change of tariff from domestic to LTVII-A was effected when it was found that there is usage of additional load for purposes other than domestic. After W.P.(C).29766/04 3 submission of revised completion report and after payment of 'Additional Cash Deposit' based on the enhanced load, the connection in question was regularised and the tariff was reverted back to that of domestic. Therefore charging of electrical energy under the altered tariff of LTVII-A can only be continued till the date of payment of the 'Additional Cash Deposit'. Therefore direction was issued to rectify the demand, restricting the same for the period from 1.5.2000 upto the date of remittance of the ACD, instead of the period from 1.5.2000 to 1.11.2000. 2. The grievance now voiced by the petitioner is that, inspite of submission of completion report and application for regularisation as early as in June 2000, the authorities of the Board had received the ACD and regularised the connection only during October 2000. Therefore the collection of Electricity charges at the altered tariff for the period from June 2000 to November 2000 was not legal and justifiable. It is evident from the records that the additional connected load was regularised only during the month of October on remittance of 'Additional Cash Deposit'. Learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that the 'Additional Cash Deposit' was remitted only on 10.10.2000. There is no evidence produced before this Court to show that the application for regularisation along with W.P.(C).29766/04 4 completion report was submitted earlier and to show that there occurred any inordinate delay in receiving the ACD due to laches on the part of the respondents. Under these circumstances I am not persuaded to interfere with the demand under the higher tariff imposed till the date of remittance of the 'Additional Cash Deposit'. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb