IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 24558 of 2002(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOY CHELLAKKUDAM, KATTANTHODE, PERUMATTY COLLEGE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHITTUR. ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SC, KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.24558/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE BILLS FROM 11/01 TO 3/02. P2:- COPY OF THE BILL DT. 5.4.02. P3:- COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED ON 4.4.02. P4:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 18..02. P5:- COPY OF THE SUBSEQUENT BILL ISSUED TO PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF 5/02. P5(a):- COPY OF THE SUBSEQUENT BILL ISSUED TO PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF 6/02. P6:- COPY OF THE REVISED BILL DT. 17.6.02. P7:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.24558/2002-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this petition is against Exts.P4 and P6 whereby the petitioner has been assessed for an amount of Rs.38,749/-. The petitioner is having three electric connections with three consumer numbers for different purposes. Consumer No.3253 is for the residential house under domestic tariff with 16KW connected load and consumer No.3605 is for agricultural purpose with 4HP connected load and consumer No.12441 is for industrial purpose with a sanctioned load of 10HP. 2. It is stated that for the agricultural purposes, a 5HP motor is installed with consumer No.3605. For gardening purposes a new 1HP motor was installed in the well from where water is collected for household facilities. This was without any prior sanction. Whereas, there was an inspection on 04/04/2002, which resulted in a total demand of Rs.85,624/- as per Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the mahazar. The petitioner challenged the same in an appeal in which Ext.P4 order was passed. The appellate authority found that the assessment made by the Assistant Executive Engineer is on the higher side and therefore, the invoice needs revision. Accordingly, Ext.P6 O.P. No.24558/2002 -:2:- revised bill was issued reducing the amount to Rs.38,749/-. The petitioner has raised various grounds in the original petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even going by the appellate order, the petitioner is entitled for a further revision since the appellate authority has also directed to revise the bill taking the average monthly consumption as 1088 units as per the calculation sheet. In the calculation sheet, 14 items of equipments have been stated apart from 1HP motor. It is submitted that in the absence of any allegation that any theft has been committed in respect of those equipments, the total assessment of 1088 units cannot be justified. 4. In the counter affidavit, the details of the irregularities detected has been stated in paragraph (4). It is stated that the squad found that in consumer No.3605 the petitioner had taken out one insulated black PVC wire of size 3/20 from the outgoing terminal of one fuse carrier on the left side of the switch board and has also taken out another PVC wire of same size from the neutral link in the switch board and both these wires are joined and taken together to the switch board of another 1HP motor at a distance of 200 meters, which is used for domestic purpose. It is also stated that another insulated electric wire O.P. No.24558/2002 -:3:- from consumer No.3253 is also available to the same switch board of 1HP motor. It is also detected by the squad that there is every possibility to join these two separate pairs of wires (phase and neutral) from two different connections and thereby the supply from consumer No.3605 can be unauthorisedly extended to run the equipments in consumer No.3253 without the supply being metered. Therefore, even going by the averments, it is only a suspicion that the supply from consumer No.3605 may be extended to the equipments of consumer No.3253 without the supply being metered. Actually, the present extension if at all found in consumer No.3605 is only to the 1HP motor. No actual extension of supply from consumer No.3605 to consumer No.3253 (domestic) has been found, even though a needle of suspicion is there. Whether that will justify the assessment for additional bill is the moot question raised here. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that going by the findings entered in Ext.P4, there is a theft of electricity by unauthorisedly extending the supply and therefore, the petitioner is benefited by the use of electric energy from the agricultural connection to the domestic connection. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the assessment made by the O.P. No.24558/2002 -:4:- appellate authority taking 1088 units is correct and does not call for any interference. 6. Even accepting that all the allegations against the petitioner are taken as proved, it can lead only to the inference that he has contracted to take unauthorised connection to the 1HP motor which is used for domestic purpose. It is not found by the inspecting team that the supply from consumer No.3605 (agricultural) is being extended to run the equipments in consumer No.3253, that is termed as only a possibility going by the pleadings in the counter affidavit. It is not at all found that all the equipments shown in Ext.P4 have been connected to the unauthorised connection. In that view of the matter, what could be assessed as unauthorised extension is only the extension from the agricultural connection to the 1HP motor used for domestic purpose and, therefore, the monthly unit taken as 1088 which is the entire consumption for the domestic connection, cannot be taken for quantification. There is no case that the consumer is not paying electricity charges for the said units consumed. Only for the units covered by the theft alone bill could be raised. Therefore, the direction in Ext.P4 to take the average monthly consumption as 1088 units for the purpose of penal charges is vacated. The petitioner can be assessed for penal bill only by taking total monthly consumption for the unauthorised O.P. No.24558/2002 -:5:- connected load leading to the 1HP motor alone. Accordingly, the bill, Ext.P6 is also quashed. Respondents will issue a revised bill as ordered above. The amount paid by the petitioner will be adjusted to the same and if any excess amount is there, the same will be adjusted towards future bills payable by the petitioner. The O.P is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms O.P. No.24558/2002 -:6:- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.24558/2002-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T 5 t h D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 8 .