IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 36667 of 2001(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.FATHIMA, D/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, MANAGING PARTNER, KHAYAAM THEATRE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, TIRUR EAST, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1TO3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.36667/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO.59967/2001 IN OP NO.36667/2001 DISMISSED. 26/05/2009 SD/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF BILL NO.75128 DATED 25/06/2001 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. P1 (a) : COPY OF BILL DEMANDING RS.61,066/- ISSUED BY THE KSEB TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 02/07/2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP NO.20553/2001 DATED 25/07/2001. P4 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 01/11/2001 ISSUED BY R2. P5 : COPY OF SITE MAHAZAR PREPARED ON 23/05/2001 BY THE ENGINEER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- O.P. No.36667 of 2001 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm running a theatre called Khayaam Theatre at Tirur, availing of energy supplied by the Board with consumer No.3600. It would appear that on 23/05/2001, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises and on such inspection it was found that against the sanctioned load of 50 KW, the total connected load was 119.36 KW. The details of the connected load are detailed in Ext.P5, the site mahazar prepared at the time of the inspection. 2. It would appear that based on the inspection, Ext.P1 was issued enclosing a bill demanding Rs.3,20,152/-. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 before this Court by filing Original Petition No.20553/2001. That OP was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 25/07/2001 directing the Chief Engineer to consider Ext.P2 representation. It was also ordered that disconnection will be kept in abeyance, on the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. O.P.No.36667/2001 -2- Accordingly, the matter was considered and by Ext.P4 order, the Chief Engineer issued the following directions:- “Hence I order that 1. The invoice for Rs.61,066/- and Rs.3,20,152/- are to be remitted by the consumer for which 2 weeks time will be allowed. There shall be no interest payable by the consumer if the remittance is made accordingly. 2. The CTs and the meter in the consumers' premises may be replaced with new CTs and electronic CT meter. After watching the consumption for 3 months the invoice issued for the faulty period of the meter may be reassessed and adjustment/additional bill issued to the consumer immediately thereafter. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Tirur has to take action to regularise the additional load by accepting charges like additional CD, Service connection charges etc. as per rule if the consumer so desires in writing.” It is challening Ext.P4, the original petition is filed. 3. From Ext.P4, it is seen that one of the irregularities noticed at the time of inspection was that the meter was not working in two phases when external load was applied. In view of this, the respondents themselves have quantified the consumption applying multiplication factor of '2' and on that basis, the amount O.P.No.36667/2001 -3- due from the petitioner has been quantified at Rs.1,00,881/-. It is also stated in Ext.P4 that of the unauthorised additional load of 40 KW, except the equipments of 10KW, all other equipments were installed, when the power supply was initially availed by the petitioner way back in 1983. Ext.P4 also makes reference to the Completion Report produced by the petitioner, which itself shows that the load proposed in the premises at the time of application for connection was 126 KW. In the light of these facts, findings in Exts.P1 & P4 that there was unauthorised additional load of 40 KW cannot be faulted. 4. However, in so far as the consumption at the meter is concerned, facts disclose that even going by the findings in Ext.P4, this was a case where the meter was faulty. If that be so, except after taking recourse to the proceedings under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, the respondents could not have penalized the petitioner. Admittedly, this has not been done, and therefore, the liability of Rs.1,00,881/- cannot be sustained. Therefore, to that extent, Ext.P4 needs to be interfered with, and I do so. In all other respect, Ext.P4 deserves to be upheld. O.P.No.36667/2001 -4- 5. The original petition is disposed of directing that excluding the liability of Rs.1,00,881/- imposed in Ext.P4, it will be open to the respondents to realise the amount found to be due from the petitioner by issuing a revised demand and if that is not paid, it will be open to the respondents to take appropriate action as is permissible in law. The original petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg