Dismissed

E.U.Abdul Rasheed v. Kerala State Electricity Board,Tvm

Kerala HC13 Nov 2014WP(C)/34156/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a writ petition challenging short assessment bills for energy consumption. Finding no concrete material proving the old meter was defective but acknowledging a wide disparity in consumption figures, the Court deemed the previously ordered 50% satisfaction adequate. The petition is dismissed, barring recovery of the remaining amount.

What did the court decide?

No further amount shall be recovered from the petitioner based on the impugned bills after satisfaction of 50% of the disputed liability.

E.U.Abdul Rasheed Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/22ND KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 34156 of 2004 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. E.U. ABDUL RASHEED, UMAS LODGE, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KHADEEJA MANZIL, KARAPUZHA KOTTAYAM.

¶8

*** ADDL.P2 IMPLEADED**

¶9

2. E.U.HUMAYOON KABEER, S/O.LATE HAJEE E.P. UMMERKUTTY, MOULANA MANZIL UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.P2 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.06.2008 IN IA.6977/2008).

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶14

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION KOTTAYAM CENTRAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB BY ADV. SRI C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 34156 of 2004 (N)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 15/7/03 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2

¶22

P2: COPY OF BILL DATED 16/8/03 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2

¶23

P3: COPY OF BILL DATED 15/9/03 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2

¶24

P4: COPY OF BILL DATED 15/10/03 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2

¶25

P5: COPY OF BILL DATED 15/11/03 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2

¶26

P6: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25/10/04 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2

¶27

P7: COPY OF BILL DATED 25/10/04 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

W.P(C). No. 34156 of 2004

¶35

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2014

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner is challenging Exts.P6 and P7 demand/bill issued by the respondent Board asking the petitioner to satisfy a sum of `30,148/- in respect of the short assessment for 3322 units for the concerned period. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's connection is having the Consumer No.C-4141 and the petitioner is running a small lodge for the past several years. Bills were being issued at different points of time, which were being honoured then and there. There was no complaint at any point of time to suggest that the petitioner had pursued any malpractice, nor was there any case for the respondents that the meter installed at the premises of the petitioner was faulty. The meter came to be changed only for causing the 'mechanical meter' to be replaced by the 'electronic meter'. It was thereafter, that the impugned bills came to be issued stating that, as per the mechanical meter, the entire energy actually consumed was not being recorded. This made the petitioner to approach this Court

¶38

WP(c). No.34156 of 2004

¶39

¶40

by filing this writ petition.

¶41

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.11.2004, it was admitted, also granting interim stay on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the amount covered by Ext.P7, under protest. The respondents have filed counter affidavit giving the particulars of the energy consumption in the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner for the period from November 2002 to November 2003. The fact that the mechanical meter was replaced with a new good working static meter on 26.11.2003 and the reading from December 2003 to June 2004 showing the energy consumption, is given in the form of another table. It is stated that the petitioner has satisfied all the 3 bills without any protest and there was no case that the new energy meter installed in the premises was faulty or defective in any manner. With reference to the figures given in the aforesaid tables, it is stated that the old meter replaced was a faulty or defective one and the increase in the consumption is nearly 100%.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, even in the counter affidavit, there is no case for the respondents

¶43

WP(c). No.34156 of 2004

¶44

¶45

that the mechanical meter installed in the premises earlier, was actually defective in any manner, but for the vague presumption as stated in paragraph 8. The actual reason for having issued the impugned bill is discernible from paragraph 12, which reads as follows:

¶46

“It is respectfully submitted that on 17.1.95 Electric Section, Kottayam was inspected by the officers of Accountant General of India. During this inspection they noticed the high difference in consumption on both meters installed in Consumer No.C4141. Under such a circumstance Assistant Engineer of the Electric Section Kottayam Central was instructed to issue short assessment bill for the meter faulty period vide Audit report No.ECA1/D/84494/03-04/133/985 dated 17.1.2005. 2^nd respondent is bound to act according to the audit report of Accountant General of India. Hence there is nothing illegal in issuing the short assessment bill to the petitioner.”

¶47

After hearing both the sides this Court is of the view

¶48

that, no concrete material has been brought before this Court to hold that the earlier meter was defective. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be fully absolved from the liability, in view of the wide disparity with regard to the figures disclosed from the table as to the energy consumption before changing the meter and after the event.

¶49

WP(c). No.34156 of 2004

¶50

¶51

In the above circumstances, striking a balance, this Court finds that 50% of the disputed liability already ordered to be satisfied as per the interim order dated 24.11.2004 will be adequate enough to meet the requirements. Subject to satisfaction of the said liability, no further amount shall be recovered from the petitioner based on Exts.P6 and P7.

¶52

The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶55

E.U.Abdul Rasheed v. Kerala State Electricity Board,Tvm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.U.Abdul Rasheed v. Kerala State Electricity Board,Tvm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasantha Venugopal Vs the Tahsildar

Mar Ivanios Industrial Training Centre Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S. Reliance Security Agency Vs Vijaya Bank

Zakkeer Hussain Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Nabeel Ansari Vs Superintendent of Customs

Madeesh M.P. Vs the Federal Bank