IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 26610 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- FATHIMA BEEVI,FATHIMA RUBBER AND INDUSTRIES,CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES ESTATES,AROOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KUTHIYATHODU,ALLAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AROOR. R1 TO R3 BYADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26610 of 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE BILL DATED 20/08/2007 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. REPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26610 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is running an industrial unit in Aroor. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. According to the petitioner, she is paying her monthly energy charges regularly without default. But, the petitioner was suddenly served with Ext.P1 bill dated 20.8.2007 demanding additional electricity charges of Rs.63,216/- which is stated to be short assessment on account of insufficiency of the capacitor installed by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the capacitor installed by the petitioner was not insufficient. According to the petitioner, she has not been served with any inspection report in this regard and she has not been informed about any finding in respect of the capacitor also. Therefore, Ext.P1 bill is unsustainable, is the contention raised. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. But, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board insists that the capacitor is insufficient and therefore, W.P.(C)No.26610/07 2 Ext.P1 is valid. 3. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner has been given a notice stating that the capacitor installed by the petitioner is insufficient and it has to be replaced. There is no case that any inspection report regarding the inspection of the capacitor has been served on the petitioner. Further the note in Ext.P1 bill reads thus: “3. Con.No.42/IV/63KW: The capacitor installed in the premises was faulty and hence extra charges @ 20% had been levied till 6/04. A new capacitor of 24kvar rating was installed in 7/04 and the extra charging was discontinued. The capacitor of 24KVAR rating is quite insufficient for C/D of 63Kw and hence there is short assessment from 7/04 to till date. The loss sustained to KSEB on account of this for the period from 7/04 to 5/07 is worked out as follows: Short FC @ Rs.45x63x.2x35 months = Rs.19845 Short EC for the period from 7/04-5/07 7845 - 4769= 376x20 (MF)-61520x .65 Rs.39988 Duty due 3383 -------------- Total 63216” In the same after stating that a new capacitor was installed in 7/04 and the extra charging was discontinued, the bill is raised for the period from 7/04 to 5/07, which does not make sense. 4. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Ext.P1 bill is unsustainable. In fact the respondents have not W.P.(C)No.26610/07 3 chosen to file any counter affidavit controverting the averments in the writ petition, which means that the averments are admitted. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is quashed. The amount paid by the petitioner, pursuant to the interim order in this writ petition, shall be adjusted against the future bills of the petitioner, if any and if not the same shall be refunded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.26610/07 4 W.P.(C)No.26610/07 5