Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs D.K.Krishnakumari on 19 June, 2006
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY,THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/14TH JYAISHTA 1935
WA.No. 1683 of 2007 ( )
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22513/2004 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
19-06-2006.
.......
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REP. BY SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DIVISION OFFICE
KOLLAM.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOLLAM.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PERINAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------------------------
D.K.KRISHNAKUMARI, AGED 51 YEARS,
W/O. KALADHARAN, CHARUVILA THODIYIL, PRAKKULAM
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
S.SIRI JAGAN
&
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
-----------------------------
W.A.No.1683 of 2007
=================
Dated this the 4th day of June 2013
JUDGMENT
--------------
S.Siri Jagan, J.
This case has a checkered history, starting from 1993 onwards. Originally, the matter was decided by Ext.P8 judgment by a learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P.No.1810 of 1997. That was taken in appeal by the respondent herein, before the Division Bench in W.A.No.755 of 1997. The judgment in that writ appeal contains facts necessary to dispose of this appeal. That judgment reads thus:
"Appellant/petitioner is a Low-Tension domestic Consumer of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The meter installed in her premises was replaced on 1.11.1993. Ext.P1 invoice dated 13.12.1993 issued for one month shows that power consumption was 153 units for one month. He was paying the electricity charges similarly as can be seen from Ext.P2 dated 11.6.1996. But Ext.P3 bi-monthly invoice shows that the power consumed was 1122 units. Even though the amount was paid, he filled Ext.P4 representation. Considering the representation that regarding billing of 1122 units as excessive, the respondent Board issued Ext.P5 demand notice. Demand is for Rs.68,619/- towards arrears of electricity charges from December, 1993 to October, 1996. It was followed by Ext.P6 disconnection notice. The appellant's residence is a single storied three bed room building with a three phase connection.
2. The contention of the appellant is that when Ext.P3 bill was considered, it was noticed that the Meter Reader omitted to take the last digit in the reading and therefore, that was taken into account and only mistakes were corrected. But, even if there is a mistake in Ext.P3, it cannot be assumed that all meter readers were making mistakes and cannot add one digit in all the bills already issued. On the basis of assumptions bills cannot be issued. For January and February 1994 the bill issued was for 636 units. In Ext.P5(a) it was changed as 6360 units. Simply '0' was added to bills up to June 1996. This is without any W.A.No.1683 of 2007 2 basis. In any event, admittedly there is no case for the Electricity Board that the appellant/petitioner has tampered the meter or misused the meter. Ext.P5 for the period from 12/1993 to 10/1996 was issued on 01/02/1997. In the absence of any malpractice by the consumer, bills can be issued only for a period of six months and beyond that the demands will be time barred. Regarding the correctness of Ext.P5, we also note that merely because of the connected load one cannot assume that so much electricity is consumed.
3. In the above circumstances, Exts.P5 and P6 are set aside. We direct the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board to dispose of Ext.P7 and pass a speaking order taking into account the question of time bar and discrepancies pointed out.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. Demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner until a speaking order is passed with notice to the appellant and communicated the same to the appellant. After passing of the final order, the amounts paid as per the interim orders of this court can be adjusted."
2. Pursuant to that judgment, the board passed Ext.P10 revised order, which was challenged by the respondent herein by filing W.P(C) No. 22513 of 2004. In that writ petition a learned single judge of this Court passed the following judgment:
"The petitioner, a domestic three phase LT consumer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash Ext.P10 order by which the K.S.E.B approves the orders passed by its Subordinate Officers and holds that the petitioner is liable to pay the short assessment bill of Rs.68,619/-. Under Ext.P10 the petitioner is directed to approach the Assistant Engineer concerned if she needs indulgence of instalment facility. Ext.P10 is impugned on various grounds raised in the writ petition.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.P.Santhalingam, learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board who have addressed arguments on the basis of the pleadings raised by their respective clients in challenge of and in support of Ext.P10. I have considered the pleadings and the arguments.
I find considerable force in the submission of Sri.Sreekumar that Ext.P10 order has been passed by the Electricity Board without taking into account the findings of the Division Bench of this Court which are very clear to the W.A.No.1683 of 2007 3 effect that meter reading in February 1994 which was recorded as 636 units cannot be changed as 663 units on the reason that on 1/11/93 when the meter was installed the initial reading was wrongly noted as 4 while it should have been 40. Even if the statement in Ext.P10 that on 1/11/93 at the time of installation of the meter initial reading was wrongly recorded as 4 instead of 40 is correct, then also the difference could have been only 36 units. A reading of Ext.P5 will show that what the Board has done is to multiply every unit recorded by the meter reader from time to time by 10 and this is in my view,an unsustainable stand. Accordingly, Ext.P10 will stand set aside and the 1st respondent-Board is directed to consider the issue, which is seen decided under Ext.P10 imbibing the true spirit of findings entered by the Division Bench of this Court. This will be done at his earliest and at any rate within one month of the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment. Since stay was granted by this Court only after putting the petitioner to certain conditions and since the petitioner has complied with those conditions the order of stay will continue till such time as the Board takes a fresh decision. The above fresh decision as ordered above will be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing and once decision is taken, the same will be intimated to the petitioner."
3. The K.S.E.B and its officers are challenging that judgment. According to the appellants, the learned single judge read the facts incorrectly to come to the erroneous conclusion reached. According to them, when meter reading was taken without taking into account the last digit, the only way that mistake can be corrected is by adding a '0' to the meter reading already taken. Therefore, what the appellants have done by passing Ext.P10 order is correct, is the contention raised.
4. We have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. The period of the bill is from December 1993 to October 1996. i.e. for a period of 35 months. It defies all logic to say that every meter reader, who read the meter at the residential premises W.A.No.1683 of 2007 4 of the respondent every month, omitted to add the last digit to the meter reading. To say the least, it is a preposterous contention. If it was true, the appellants could have supported that contention by showing the average consumption per month prior to December 1993 and demonstrating it to this Court that, after November 1993, there was actually a considerable reduction in the consumption. The appellants have not chosen to demonstrate the same to us. Of course, if there was a mistake in meter reading, if the appellants had demanded electricity charges on the basis of the average reading of the previous six months, we could have understood that course of action. The appellants have not chosen to do that also. In any event, insofar as the story that for 35 months, every meter reader omitted to read the last digit of the meter reading cannot be taken without a pinch of salt. The matter has been hanging for from 1993 onwards. The litigation has to be given a quietus at least now. We are of opinion that, what the Single Judge has done is the best way to do so. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jm/-