Remanded

Thomas P.J. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Kerala HC22 Jul 2019WP(C)/7995/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority to require KSEB to investigate the actual consumption of a specific machine referenced in an assessment Mahazar, distinguishing it from a private contractor's report, and modify the order if a lower consumption is found.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Appellate Authority to cause KSEB to inquire into the actual consumption of the third machine and issue a fresh order if lower consumption is found; deferred further action under the impu

Thomas P.J. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7995 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THOMAS P.J., DART POWER LAUNDRY, C21, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PAPPANAMCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 019.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 012.

¶12

3 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY CC 51/52, NEAR 110 KV SUB STATION, VYTTILA, KOCHI, PIN-682 019.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.N.SATHEESH, SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.7995 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

In the backdrop of all the allegations and averments in this writ petition is, in fact, a very short issue, that requires the attention of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB).

¶19

The petitioner, who alleges that Ext.P1 Mahazar prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the KSEB is inaccurate, relies on Ext.P12 report obtained by him from a private contractor to substantiate it. According to the petitioner, the third machine in Ext.P1, namely a Dryer, which is shown to be consuming 25 kw, in fact, consumes only 2.5 kw, as is clear from Ext.P12; and therefore, that if this is properly accounted, then the allegation against him, that he has consumed more than the connected load, would not be tenable.

¶20

According to the petitioner, as is evident from Ext.P1, the site inspection by the APTS has been videographed and therefore, it is not difficult for the Authorities to verify whether the machine referred to in Ext.P12 is the same machine which was seen at the time when the inspection was conducted.

¶21

In effect, the petitioner's allegation is that the record of consumption of the third machine shown in Ext.P1 is inaccurate and that its actual consumption is only 2.5 kw.

¶22

Sri.N.Satheesh, the learned standing counsel appearing

¶23

WP(C).No.7995 of 2019

¶24

¶25

for the KSEB, submits that an objection as afore was never raised by the petitioner at any point of time prior and that, as is luculent from paragraph 5 of the writ petition, his only contention is that six machines though found in the premises were never connected and that this would warrant a reduction of 14 kw from the total consumption shown in the Mahazar. He says even if it is so, the total connected load in the premises of the petitioner would still be over the sanctioned load. He, however, says that there is no legal inhibition in verifying whether the third machine mentioned in Ext.P1 consumes 25 kw, as found by the APTS, or only 2.5 kw, as has been certified by a private contractor. He, however, adds that the opinion of the private contractor can never be given primacy, since the said entity is not an accredited agency.

¶26

When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious that the petitioner's limited contention in this writ petition is that the third machine in Ext.P1 consumes only 2.5 kw contrary to what has been recorded therein. This certainly is a question of fact, which will require a further investigation by the concerned Authorities.

¶27

As rightly pointed out by Sri.Rajeevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, since it is recorded in Ext.P1 Mahazar that the inspection has been videographed, it certainly is logical

¶28

WP(C).No.7995 of 2019

¶29

¶30

that the competent Authority of the KSEB look through this video and verify whether the machine noticed by them is the same machine that has been referred to in Ext.P12. I am not, for a moment, saying that the record in Ext.P12 must be accepted but only that a verification of the same would be apposite, particularly because the difference in consumption is more than 22.5 kw going by the Mahazar and Ext.P12 opinion.

¶31

In the afore circumstances and in order to pave way for a fresh consideration of these aspects but without setting aside the impugned order, namely Ext.P4, I direct the Appellate Authority to cause the KSEB to inquire into the actual consumption of the third machine showed in Ext.P1 and if, for any reason, it is found from such factual analysis that the consumption of the said machine is much lower than what is shown in Ext.P1 Mahazar, the said Authority will issue a fresh order modifying Ext.P4 to that extent and direct that the Assessing Authority of the KSEB to issue an appropriate bill based on such findings, subsequently.

¶32

This exercise shall be completed by the third respondent - Appellate Authority, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Needless to say, until such time as the afore is completed,

¶34

WP(C).No.7995 of 2019

¶35

¶36

all further action pursuant to Ext.P4 shall stand deferred.

¶37

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶38

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Stu

¶41

WP(C).No.7995 of 2019

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASAR DATED 26.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 16.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 18.12.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 23236/18 DATED 14.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT NO.797688 DATED 15.12.18 FOR RS.1,32,647/- AND DEMAND DRAFT NO.797689 DATED 15.12.2018 FOR RS.2,653/-.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FACTS DATED NIL IN APPEAL NO.291 OF 2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN APPEAL NO.291 OF 2018 DATED 1.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.RB/PJPA/DC/18-19 DATED 4.2.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, POOJAPPURA.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.3.2019 IN WPC NO.3887 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT TAKEN ON 11.3.2019 AT 12.30.PM AS PER THE PREMISES CONDITION OF CONSUMER NO.15157 UNDER KSEBL SECTION, POOJAPPURA BY SRI.R.VENUGOPAL MANAGER, VENKATESWARA ELECTRICALS, A CLASS CONTRACTORS.

¶46

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A TO JUDGE.

Thomas P.J. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas P.J. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

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

K.Ravindran Vs Ramasan Koyilotan

Salimsha.O.K Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Mr.G.Sreenivasan Vs Maya.K.Nair

Rajeevan K. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

K.K.Joseph Vs the Authorized Officer, Under the Sarfaesi Act, Federal Bank Ltd.

Rajani.K., Vs Sasikumar.P.