Dismissed

T.C.Poulose v. Kseb and Others

Kerala HC8 Sept 2009WP(C)/21157/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order demandings outstanding electricity dues. The Court distinguished Nirmala Industries V. KSEB as the meter defect was due to CT connection errors, not incurrence by the meter itself, and affirmed the deposit against future bills.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the third respondent directed to adjust the deposit against the balance due in future bills.

T.C.Poulose Vs Kseb and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 21157 of 2008(R)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

T.C.POULOSE, POULOSE PLASTICS, ASAMANNUR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. MR.BOBBY JOHN, MR.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD (APTS), CENTRAL REGION, ALUVA.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KURUPPAMPADY.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C). NO.21157/2008-R:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DTD. 18/01/05 ISSUED BY THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KURUPPUMPADY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/01/05 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KURUPPUMPADY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 19/01/05 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KURUPPUMPADY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 28/01/05 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS) (HQ) PATTOM.

¶25

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/01/05 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS) (HQ) PATTOM TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 19/06/08 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 17/03/05 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3.

¶28

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/03/05 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DTD. 30/08/08 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REVISED BILL DTD. 30/08/08 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶36

W.P.(C).No.21157 OF 2008

¶37

Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2009.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, an appellate order passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶40

Facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the proprietor of a small scale industrial unit, which is a high tension consumer, availing of supply under LT-IV tariff with consumer No.6245. On 18.1.2005, petitioner's premises was inspected by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the respondent Board and Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared. He was issued Ext.P3 bill demanding an amount of Rs.1,40,702/-. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal, which has now been disposed of by Ext.P6 appellate order. In Ext.P6, the demand has been reduced and after giving credit to the payments already made by the petitioner, he has been called upon to pay Rs.17,910/- as per Exts.P9 and P10 revised bill.

¶41

The contention raised by the petitioner is mainly that the finding in Ext.P1 mahazar and Ext.P6 order passed by the appellate authority, suggest that the meter was faulty, in as much

¶42

WP(c).No.21157/08 2

¶43

as the actual consumption was not recorded. It is stated that, if that be so, in view of the judgment in Nirmala Industries V. KSEB ( 2006(3) KLT 465) the meter ought to have been got checked by the Electrical Inspector and in the absence of such a verification, demand could not have been raised on the consumer.

¶44

In my view, the aforesaid judgment or the legal position canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner is inapplicable to the facts of this case. A reading of Exts.P1 mahazar and P6, the appellate order shows that, when the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the APTS on 18.1.2005, it was found that the meter was not recording energy as per the actual consumption and the error was found to be -37.16%. It was also found that such erroneous recording of consumption was due to wrong connection of CTs. Evidently, therefore, the defect was only in connecting the CTs and no defect, what so ever, was noticed in the meter as such. If that be so, the principle laid down by this court in the Nirmala Industries Case is inapplicable to this case and the respondents cannot be faulted for demanding energy charges from the petitioner as done in this case.

¶45

On facts also, it is seen that, at the time of inspection, the respondents verified the erroneous recording of consumption, utilizing the Accucheck, an electrical equipment which is used by the respondents in similar circumstances. In the counter affidavit

¶46

WP(c).No.21157/08

¶47

¶48

filed, the respondents have also affirmed the accuracy of such instruments and nothing has been placed in this writ petition to conclude that any arbitrariness has been committed by the respondents in adopting the aforesaid method of verification.

¶49

Petitioner further prays that the 3^rd respondent be directed to

¶50

refund the cash deposit made by the petitioner. A reading of the counter affidavit shows that the petitioner is a deemed HT consumer and that security of Rs.28,910/- has been remitted by the petitioner

¶51

towards his initial LT connection. In the counter affidavit itself it is stated that the said amount will be refunded to the petitioner once the petitioner settles the amount due under the impugned bills. Going by Ext.P10 what is due from the petitioner is only Rs.17,910/. If that be so, the 3^rd respondent shall adjust the balance amount due in the future bills of the petitioner.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶54

vi/

¶55

WP(c).No.21157/08 4

T.C.Poulose v. Kseb and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Poulose v. Kseb and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose S/O.Abraham Vs State of Kerala & Others

Karnataka State Road Transport Crpn. Vs P. Honniah

South Indian Constructions Vs Kerala Police Housing & Construction Cor

M.a.Santhakumari Vs the State of Kerala and Others

P.Basheer Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societie

Dr.K.N.Rajan Babu Vs State of Kerala and Others