IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 7047 of 2001(L) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE MANGING DIRECTOR, PERIA PEAK ESTATE PVT. LTD, PERIA POST, MANANDAVADY, WYNAD. BY ADV. MR.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BORD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETRY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, MANANDAVADY. ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 7047 of 2001(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILLS PERTAINING TO AUGUST, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06/11/2000. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INVOICE SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF Rs.8,04,741/- DATED 06/11/2000. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDNT DATED 08/02/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- O.P.NO.7047 OF 2001 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Managing Director of a tea factory at Mananthavady and is the consumer of electrical energy for the said factory. On 16/9/2000 the Anti Power Theft Squad conducted a site inspection and detected that the power meter is recording only 1/3rd of the actual power drawn from the mains due to wrong electrical connection of CT meters resulted in reverse running in one phase and the existence of unauthorised additional load of 44 KW over and above the authorised load of 130 KW. On the basis of the inspection report, which is produced as Ext.P2, the consumer was re-assessed with effect from 12/97 for partial recording and 3 times rate on fixed charge and proportionate current charge was charged for unauthorised additional load (UAL). Ext.P3 is the bill in which the grand total shows Rs.8,04,741/- out of that fixed charge is Rs.27,720/-. Petitioner challenged Ext.P3 bill in an -2- O.P.No.7047/2001 appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by proceedings dated 8/2/2001 dismissed the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised all the contentions placed before the Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel, Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy provides for re-assessment for six months and there is no reason for adopting the period from 12/97, a total period of 32 months. The learned counsel also brought to this Court's attention the decision of the Supreme Court in Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board (AIR 1997 SC 2793), the unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23/11/2005 in O.P.No.191/98 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nirmala Metal Industries v. K.S.E.B. (2006 (3) KLT 465). Learned counsel submitted that re-assessment has to be done based on the aforesaid decisions and it has to be limited to six months. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E. Board contended that CT connection in Y phase was reversed and there -3- O.P.No.7047/2001 was unauthorised additional load of 44 KW during inspection. The period of re-assessment is taken as 12/97, as there was sudden drop in recorded consumption from the said date. The recorded consumption for 10/97 was 21098 Kwh, 11/97 was 23020 KWh and 12/97 was 8782 KWh, which is approximately 1/3 of earlier consumption. It is also brought to this Court's attention the recorded consumption subsequent to the site inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad. It shows that the recorded consumption for the month of November, 2000 is 30,280 and for the month of December, 2000, is 36,962 kwh. The Appellate Authority did not accept the contention of the appellant that Section 26(6) is applicable and therefore the maximum amount that can be realised is only for a period of six months prior to the date of inspection. The Appellate Authority held that Section 26(6) is applicable only in case of faulty meters where the reassessment is done based on approximation or overcharging. In such cases Section 26(6) will attract and the period has to be limited to six months. According to the -4- O.P.No.7047/2001 Appellate Authority, in the instant case, it is entirely different and that similar issue has been settled by the judgment of the Apex Court and the High Court. In the judgment in O.P.No.191/98 referred to above, it was stated that on inspection, it was found that there was some defect in the electric connections inside the meter consequent to which the meter was recording only 1/3 of the actual energy consumed. In that case a bill for short assessment for consumption of electrical energy for the period stated therein was issued demanding charges for the balance 2/3 energy as payable by the petitioner therein. 4. This Court relying on the decision reported in Belwal Spinning Mills's case (1997 SC 2793) discussed the issue and observed that there is absolutely no allegation of fraud or mal- practice on the part of the consumer, that the reduced recording was caused due to the wrong connection inside the meter. The meter recorded on l/3 of the actual consumption. The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are more or less similar. In this case also the the consumer has not done any mal- -5- O.P.No.7047/2001 practice or fraud for the purpose of showing reduced consumption of energy. Since the Y phase connection is reversed, 1/3 of the actual consumption was recorded. In the Supreme Court case also, there was a defective connection whereby the original meter was registering only 76.6% less than the actual use. The Court held that Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act is attracted and therefore, the right of the K.S.E. Board to demand arrears is limited to a period of past six months. In this case also applying Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, the matter has to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector, as in the said case. It was held that the K.S.E. Board is entitled to demand arrears only for a period of past six months for the reason that the recorded consumption is 1/3 of the actual consumption. 5. Ext.P3 bill was issued for realisation of the amount for the loss caused to the Board for the reason that Y phase connection is reversed and for unauthorised additional load to the extent of 44 KWh under Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of -6- O.P.No.7047/2001 Supply of Electrical Energy. The petitioner is liable to pay the amounts assessed by the Board for unauthorised additional load of 44 Kwh in addition to the demand for payment of arrears for the past six months from the date of detection. Respondents are entitled to demand only the amount as stated above. 6. In the result, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to re-work the arrears and issue a fresh bill to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount already deposited in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court shall be adjusted. Original Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.