IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 11061 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SHIBU MANUEL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MANUEL, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELOOR VILLAGE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,ALUVA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,KALAMASSERY. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION,ELOOR. 4. THE SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION,ELOOR. * ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED 5. WILLIAM PERERA, S/O.LUIS PERERA, HOUSE NO.10/115 (12/494) KUTTIKKAPAUAMBIL HOUSE, ELOOR VILLAGE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 17/05/2010 IN I.A. NO.5371/2010. R1-4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.11061 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the tenant in respect of building No.X- 115 C of Eloor Panchayat, belonging to the additional 5th respondent, filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P6, P10 and P12 orders and with a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to restore the electric connection to the said building with Consumer No.6958. A declaration is also sought for to the effect that the decision of the third respondent to change the tariff of Consumer No.6958 from LT-VIIB as LT-VIIA as illegal. Admittedly, the petitioner is in occupation of the aforesaid building wherein he is conducting a business of repairing electronic items. Ext.P5 is the bill raised on 23.1.2010 in respect of the said consumer number. The bill amount is Rs.4940/-. In fact, the said amount of Rs.4940/- was imposed as penal charge based on Ext.P11 inspection report. In Ext.P5 itself it is stated that the sanctioned load in respect of the said connection with consumer No.6958 is 460W (1KW). However, on inspection, the connected load was found as 2158W (3KW). According to the Kerala State Electricity Board, the penal charge was imposed under section 126(5) of the Electricity Act. Thereafter, taking note of the unauthorised load the tariff was changed WP(C).No.11061/2010 2 from LT-VIIB to LT-VIIA in terms of the schedule of tariff and terms and conditions for retail supply by the Board with effect from 1.1.2010. Subsequently, Ext.P6 was served on the petitioner, occupier of the said building, requiring him to pay the bill amount of Rs.4940/-. He was given a week's time to raise his objections and in response to the same he has submitted Ext.P7. The contention of the petitioner is that from 21.2.2009 till 29.8.2009 he could not function his aforementioned shop. According to the petitioner, the additional 5th respondent has locked the said building and he could break it open and start its functioning only after obtaining Ext.P3 order from this Court on 29.8.2009. As per Ext.P7, he has requested for continuance of the tariff LT-VIIB instead of LT-VIIA. Subsequently, Ext.P9 letter dated 4.2.2010 was issued on the petitioner requiring him to produce the authorisation letter from the registered Consumer No.6958. Later, when the matter was taken up on 8.2.2010 the consumer did not appear. According to the petitioner, he had attended the hearing. But, according to the Board none had appeared on 8.2.2010. It was found that the consumer was liable to remit an amount of Rs.4940/- within seven days from the date of receipt of Ext.P10. It also carried a warning regarding disconnection in case of failure to remit the amount within the said stipulated time. That apart, as per Ext.P10, it is observed that in case of any objection against Ext.P10 it will be open WP(C).No.11061/2010 3 to the consumer to approach the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Perumbavoor within the stipulated time. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor the additional 5th respondent submitted any objection. In the circumstances, Ext.P12 was passed. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6, 10 and P12. In Ext.P5, the recorded load as on the date of inspection was 2158W (3KW). The scheduled tariff given under the schedule of tariff and terms and conditions for retail supply would undoubtedly show that in case the consumption exceeds 1000W it has necessarily to fall under LT-VIIA. There is absolutely no record before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the load as on the date of inspection was wrongly recorded. In fact, there is no such contention for the petitioner as also for the additional 5th respondent. As already noticed, the load exceeded 1000W and in the light of the above mentioned provisions it cannot be held that the action on the part of the respondents in changing the tariff from LT-VIIB to LT-VIIA is illegal. In fact, it is based on the said fact that the tariff was changed and a penal charge of Rs.4940/- was imposed on the consumer with consumer No.6958. The petitioner did not dispute his liability to pay the bills raised in respect of the said connection as he is the occupier of the building in question. As already noticed, against Ext.P10 order no objection was raised by the petitioner as also by the registered WP(C).No.11061/2010 4 consumer. In the totality of the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with respect to Exts.P6, P10 and P12. An upshot of the said discussion is that the consumer in respect of Consumer No.6958 is liable to pay the amount Since the petitioner did not dispute his liability to pay the amount covered by the bills drawn in respect of Consumer No.6958 by virtue of his occupation of the said building the petitioner cannot escape the said liability. According to the petitioner, prior to the date shown for disconnection it has been disconnected. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the third respondent to reconnect the electric connection to the building bearing Consumer No.6958 in case the petitioner pays the amount covered as per Ext.P12 forthwith. However, it will be open to the petitioner to raise objections against the bill by availing the opportunity offered as per Ext.P10 in accordance with law. In case the petitioner files such an objection and succeeds in sustaining his objection, then the amount paid in excess shall either be refunded or adjusted against future bills. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge