Disposed

T.S. Venkateswaran v. Asst.Engineer, K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC7 Jun 2013WP(C)/8309/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged a faulty electricity meter causing excessive charges. The Court held the Board failed to follow statutory procedures. Directing a new meter assessment, the Court ordered a revised bill calculation based on six months' average consumption and six instalments for arrears.

What did the court decide?

Board to assess average consumption for six months post-new meter, issue revised bill including arrears from initial disputed bill, and allow payment in six instalments.

T.S. Venkateswaran Vs Asst.Engineer, K.S.E.B. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/17TH JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 8309 of 2005 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

T.S.VENKATESWARAN, "KALPANA",

¶8

T.D.TEMPLE ROAD, KOLLAM-691 013.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJU ABRAHAM PULPARA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OLAI SUB STATION THEVALLY, KOLLAM-9.

¶12

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., POWER HOUSE BUILDING, CHINNAKADA KOLLAM-1.

¶13

R,R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-062013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶16

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 27/10/2004 FOR RS.927/-.

¶17

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24/12/2004 SENT BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶18

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 28/12/2004 FOR RS.1,822/-.

¶19

EXT.P4(a) true COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 26/12/2003 FOR RS.405/-.

¶20

EXT.PR(B) TYRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATD 25/2/2004 FOR RS.719/-.

¶21

EXT.P4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ELECYTRICITY BILL DATED 27/4//2004 FORRS.1,503/-.

¶22

EXT.P4(D) TRUE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 26/6/2004 FOR RS. 572/-

¶23

EXT.P4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 24/8/2004 FOR RS.405/-.

¶24

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 25/2/2005 FOR RS.3,690/-

¶25

EXTY.P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN W.P.(C)8309/2005 PASSED BY THIS COURT.

¶26

EXT.P7:TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9/5/2005 TO THE RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITINER.

¶27

EXT.P7(B): TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARDS IN TOKEN OF RECEIPT OF EXT.P7 BY RESPONDENTS.

¶28

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 7/8/2005 to the RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/8/2005 SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 7/9/2005 SENT BY THE FIRST RFESPOONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12/9/2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS.

¶32

EXT.P12(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 25/2/2005 FOR RS.3690/-- ISSUED BY K.S.E.B. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶33

EXT.P12(B) TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 27/4/2005 FOR RS.4421/-0 ISSUED FROM THE RESPONDENTS.

¶34

EXT.P12(C)TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 27/6/2005 FOR RS.3,954/- ISSUED DBDY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶35

EXT.P12(D)TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 27/8/20025 DO DO EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 4/10/2005.

¶36

EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF LETTR DT. 17/10/2005 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF BIS TO THE PETITIONER.

¶37

EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF BILL FOR RS.3862/- DATED 24/10/2005.

¶38

EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF BILL DATD 12/12/2005 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RS.2115/-.

¶39

EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DT. 17/12/2005 UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING.

¶40

EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF BILL DATD 12/1/2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY K.S.E.B.

¶41

EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF REPRSENTATION DTD.12/1/2006 SENT BY PETITIONER ADDRESSING THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS.

RESPONDENTS ETS: NIL

ks.

True copy

P.s.to Judge

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶47

======================

¶48

W.P.(C)No.8309 of 2005

¶49

=======================

¶50

Dated this the 7^th day of June 2013

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

The petitioner is before this Court alleging that the meter installed in his residential premises by the respondent-Board was faulty and that the consumption recorded by the faulty meter is excessive. The petitioner has produced previous bills and the subsequent bill when the writ petition was filed. A learned single Judge of this court passed an order dated 14/3/2005 wherein the average of the earlier bills were taken and it was directed that the petitioner continues to pay Rs.720/as the bi-monthly rate, subject to further orders. It was also observed that in the meanwhile the petitioner shall file objections to Ext.P5 bill, which ought to be considered by the Board and orders passed by the competent authority within three months.

¶53

¶54

WPC 8309/20005

¶55

After the said order was passed, though objections were filed, the Board did absolutely nothing to consider the same or refer the issue to the competent authority as provided under Regulation 43 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply,2005. In fact, on intimation of a faulty meter, the respondent-Board had sufficient statutory authority to refer the issue to the Chief Electrical Inspector and could have also revised the earlier bills retrospectively for a period of six months as provided under the statute; either increasing or decreasing the demand as per the consumption recorded on installation of a new meter. The Board did absolutely nothing to comply with the statutory mandate or comply with the directions in Ext.P6 order.

¶56

It is pertinent to note that the petitioner continued to pay the amount as per Et.P6 order and even after installation of a new meter in 2013 by the Electricity Board, by virtue of the interim order passed earlier in the instant writ petition, he continues to do so. The learned counsel for the Board, however contends that it is only due to the non-cooperation of the petitioner that replacement could not be carried on in the

¶57

WPC 8309/20005 3

¶58

petitioner's premises or the faulty meter removed; to refer the dispute to the Chief Electrical Inspector. If the Board was restricted from doing the same, definitely they could have approached this court and obtained orders, especially since the petitioner has been paying the rates as provided in the interim order dated 14/3/2005 for the last eight years.

¶59

In any event, as on today, there is a new meter installed in the premises and it is also admitted that it has been functioning for the last three months . The Board also admits that the earlier meter was faulty. In such circumstances, the Board shall assess the average consumption for the six months from the date of installation of the new meter; which is now done as per the orders of this court. There is absolutely no purpose in referring the matter at this stage to the Chief Electrical Inspector, since the petitioner also does not have a dispute with respect to the present meter reading. Based on the average consumption for six months, subsequent to the installation of new meter, the Board shall issue a revised bill for the period commencing from the issuance of Ext.P1 bill and the petitioner shall be given six instalments to pay off the entire arrears, if

¶60

¶61

WPC 8309/20005

¶62

any. While computing the arrears from the period of Ext.P1, the Board will take into account the tarriff in existence at the relevant period, for effecting such revision.

¶63

The writ petition is disposed of as above with the observations as stated above. No costs.

¶64

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶65

ks.

¶66

True copy

¶67

P.S.to Judge

T.S. Venkateswaran v. Asst.Engineer, K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S. Venkateswaran v. Asst.Engineer, K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eswar Gangaram Patil Vs Janardhanan Pillai

K.M.Raja Raja Varma Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

S. Shylaja Devi Vs the State of Kerala

G.Vasantha Vs State of Kerala

Biju a. Sarasam Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education

Thomas George Vs Secretary to Government