Anilkumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929** ## **OP.No. 9546 of 1999(J)** **-------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **------------------** ## **ANILKUMAR.V., PROPRIETOR, MINERVA BAKERY, N.H. 47, NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, MARADU, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON 20/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP. NO.9546/1999** **ORDER ON CMP. NO.15746/1999 IN OP. NO.9546/1999** ## **DISMISSED** ## **20.02.2008 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN , JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD BEARING CONSUMER NO.4745 DT. NIL.** ## **EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENT INVOICE DT. NIL.** **EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE NEW PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD DT. NIL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .** **EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 8.1.99 IN OP. NO.506/99.** **EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 20.1.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT .** ## **EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.3.99 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT .** **EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE IST RESPONDENT'S ORDER DT. 31.3.97 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE (EXTRA ORDINARY) DT. 31.3.1997.** **EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE DISCONNECTION NOTICE DT. 29.3.99 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN OP. NO.506/99, ISSUED FROM THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELE. MAJOR SECTION, MARADU.** _**/**_ **TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **P.N.Ravindran, J. ================= O.P.No.9546 of 1999** ## **========================** ## **Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. He is running a Bakery under the name and style "Minerva Bakery" at Nettoor. The petitioner states that he has been remitting the monthly electricity charges in terms of the provisional invoice card evidenced by Ext.P1. Ext.P1 discloses that energy charges were levied treating the consumer as falling under category LT VII B. Ext.P2 is the arrear bill issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the "Board", demanding payment of the sum of Rs.21,571/- as electricity charges for the period from 3/96 to 9/98. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner filed O.P.No.506 of 1999 in this Court. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 8.1.1999, this Court directed the petitioner to ventilate his grievances against Ext.P2 by filing objections before the second respondent OP 9546/99 -: 2 :- within two weeks therefrom. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 objections dated 20.1.1999. By Ext.P6 dated 8.3.1999, the second respondent rejected the petitioner's objections to the levy of energy charges as per Ext.P2 and called upon him to remit the sum of Rs.20,702/- within 15 days from the date of its receipt. In Ext.P6, the second respondent noticed that the service connection given to the petitioner with a connected load of 260 Watts originally stood in the name of one Kunju Mohammed, that as per the provisional invoice card issued to the consumer, he was paying energy charges for 20 units of energy every month for the period from 3/96 to 1/97 and for 120 units of energy per month from 2/97 to 9/98, that the consumer was consuming energy in excess of the said limit and was remitting the energy charges only as per the provisional invoice card, that Ext.P2 arrear bill was issued for the excess energy consumed by the consumer and that as against the connected load of 260 Watts, the petitioner who had occupied the premises later, had increased the connected load to 380 Watts for the operation of his Bakery. The second respondent has in Ext.P6 also noticed that a new provisional invoice card evidenced by Ext.P3 was OP 9546/99 -: 3 :- issued to the consumer based on the average consumption during the period from 3/96 to 9/98 and that going by the electrical energy consumed by the consumer, he was liable to pay Rs.20,702/- towards energy charges. Ext.P6 discloses that the energy charges were levied as per the tariff revision orders issued from time to time, including the one evidenced by Ext.P7. The petitioner has in this Original Petition challenged Ext.P2 arrear bill, Ext.P3 revised provisional invoice card, Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent, Ext.P7 tariff revision order and Ext.P8 disconnection notice. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was bound to pay only the energy charges as per the provisional invoice card evidenced by Ext.P2, that the respondents were not justified in issuing a fresh provisional invoice card evidenced by Ext.P3 and that the revision of tariff effected by Ext.P7 for consumers falling in LT VII B category is arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit resisting the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Original Petition. The respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that OP 9546/99 -: 4 :- the arrear bill evidenced by Ext.P2 was issued taking note of the electrical energy consumed by the petitioner in excess of the limits fixed in Ext.P2 provisional invoice card, that Ext.P3 provisional invoice card was issued revising Ext.P1 taking note of the quantum of energy consumed by the petitioner and that the petitioner is bound to pay energy charges as per the tariff revision orders issued from time to time. 5. I have heard Sri.B.Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Ext.P1 is only a provisional invoice card which requires the petitioner to pay energy charges in respect of 120 units every month. If the petitioner consumes electrical energy in excess of 120 units, he is liable to pay the energy charges for the excess energy consumed by him at the rates in force from time to time. The second respondent has in Ext.P6 taken note of the fact that the petitioner had consumed excess energy and hence, the petitioner OP 9546/99 -: 5 :- is liable to pay energy charges for the excess energy consumed. The second respondent has in Ext.P6 also set out the meter reading and the excess energy consumed by the petitioner during the relevant period, namely, from 3/96 to 9/98. That being the situation, the petitioner cannot take shelter under Ext.P1 and contended that he is liable to pay energy charges only for 120 units of electrical energy. Hence, there is no merit in the challenge to Ext.P2 or Ext.P6. 6. I shall now deal with the the challenge to Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is the disconnection notice dated 29.3.1999 issued by the second respondent - Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Maradu, calling upon the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.24,830/- including the amounts covered by Ext.P2. In Ext.P8, the Assistant Executive Engineer has called upon the petitioner to pay besides the sum of Rs.21,571/- covered by Ext.P2 invoice, other amounts as well. Though the demand in Ext.P8 cannot be said to be illegal, I notice that while issuing Ext.P8, the Assistant Executive Engineer has not taken note of Ext.P6, whereby the amount demanded in Ext.P2 was reduced from Rs.21,571/- to Rs.20,702/-. On going through Exts.P2 and OP 9546/99 -: 6 :- P6, it is clear that the demand for Rs.21,571/- is erroneous and that the said figure has to be substituted with the figure Rs.20,702/- as shown in Ext.P6. The respondents shall revise the demand in Ext.P8 accordingly. The petitioner, however is liable to pay interest for belated payment at the applicable rate. 7. As regards the challenge to Ext.P7, it is evident from a catena of decisions including the decision of the Apex Court in **Indian Aluminium Company** v. **Kerala State Electricity Board** - 1975 (2) S.C.C. 414 that the Board is competent to unilaterally revise the tariff from time to time and that the consumer is bound to pay the same. The challenge to Ext.P7 is without any merit and is hence rejected. 8. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the Original Petition and that it is liable to be dismissed. However, the respondents shall revise the demand made in Ext.P8, with reference to Ext.P6 and issue a revised demand notice to the petitioner. The respondents shall while issuing the revised demand take note of the payment made by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 8.4.1999 on C.M.P.No.15746 of 1999. OP 9546/99 -: 7 :- The original petition is dismissed,subject to the observations made above. No costs. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 1/2