IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31617 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THANKAMMA KURUVILA, CHERUTHONE, VADASSERIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB., ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, VADASSERIKKARA. 2. THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS(HQ), VIGILANCE WING, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KSEB, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RANNI. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT None appears for the petitioner. There was also no representation when the case was called on for hearing. This writ petition is hence dismissed for default. 9.2.2011 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31617 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was running a saw mill with connection provided by the respondent Board bearing consumer No.2137 as LT IV consumer. While so, there was a surprise inspection by the APTS, on the premises on 17.02.1998, when certain incriminating circumstances were noted, involving theft of energy, which was followed by bills raised on the petitioner calculating the arrears payable as `.21,904/- and `.2,975/-. Since the said amount was not satisfied, the connection was cut off and it was dismantled on 06.05.1998. 2. The petitioner challenged the course and procedure pursued by the respondent before the Consumer Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta by filing O.P. No. 179/98, which culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 27.08.1998. As per Ext.P1, the Forum set aside the impugned bills demanding a sum of `.21,904/- and `.2,975/- respectively holding that the figures were worked out more on a 'guess work'. In the said WP(C) No. 31617 of 2004 -:2:- circumstance, the reconnection was ordered to be given, however, reserving the rights and liberties of the Board to reconsider the matter and to issue revised bills. 3. The case of the petitioner is that revised bills were issued merely by reducing the sum of `.21,904 /- as `.18,736/-; while the sum of `.2,975/- was increased to `.3,527/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said proceeding, which culminated in Ext.P2 order dated 19.04.2004; whereby a minor variation was brought about. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P2 order, the assessing officer passed Ext.P2 demanding a total sum of `.37,027/-, aggrieved of which the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent seeking to have the matter reconsidered and to revise the bills exempting the petitioner from surcharge, penalty etc. more so, when the supply itself was disconnected way back on 26.12.2001 and the petitioner was in no way liable or responsible. However, without taking any action on Ext.P4, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which in turn are under challenge. WP(C) No. 31617 of 2004 -:3:- 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents as well, who submits that the sequence of events has been described by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit , seeking to sustain the revised bills. 5. However after hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the 2nd respondent has not considered the specific case of the petitioner as to the disputed liability in respect of surcharge and penalty with reference to the observations made by the CDRF in Ext.P1, which has become final. It is stated that the petitioner is not liable to satisfy any surcharge when there was no demand at all. The matter requires to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent with reference to the observations as aforesaid, before the liability is quantified and sought to be realised. It is stated that, the unit itself has become defunct and that no supply is in existence. 6. In the said circumstance the impugned proceedings are set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner; which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate WP(C) No. 31617 of 2004 -:4:- within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb