MANACAUD RUBBER INDUSTRIES Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is a consumer of Electricity from the Kerala State Electricity Board. On the ground that the energy meter installed in his premises was faulty for the period from December, 2004 to March, 2005, Ext.P1 additional bill for Rs. 1, 40,535.00 was issued to the appellant. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 objections. But, without considering those objections, the demand was confirmed by Ext.P3. It was followed up with Ext.P4 also. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.(C) No.23238 of 2009. A learned single Judge of this Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, while rejecting all the contentions raised by the petitioner, directed as follows:

(2.) BEFORE considering the contention of the petitioner, we note that against Ext.P5 judgment of the learned single Judge, the petitioner had filed W.A.No.2666 of 2009, which we have dismissed today. In fact, we are hearing this writ petition only because this writ petition was tagged along with the writ appeal, since Ext.P6 is the fresh bill issued as per the judgment which is challenged in that writ appeal.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail. The learned single Judge has directed that the 3rd respondent is free to demand energy charges from the petitioner, adopting the subsequent three months average as the basis, only in case previous three months' average cannot be quantified. The respondents have no case that prior to December, 2004 the energy meter of the petitioner was faulty. Simply because, the consumption prior to the meter becoming faulty is low, that does not enable the 3rd respondent to adopt subsequent three months' average as the basis for the demand. Only in case where the previous three months' average cannot be quantified the 3rd respondent can resort to adopting subsequent three months' average as the basis. In the above circumstances, we are of opinion that Ext.P6 and P6(a) demand are not in accordance with Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and the directions in Ext.P5 judgment. Insofar as the respondents have no case that the energy meter of the petitioner was faulty prior to December, 2004, they cannot take the subsequent three months' consumption as the basis for demanding arrears of electricity charges. They are mandatorily bound to take the three months' avereage consumption for the period prior to December, 2004, insofar as they have no case that it is impossible to take such average. Accordinlgy, Exts.P6 and P6(a) are quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to assess the petitioner for arrears of electricity charges for the period from December, 2004 to March, 2005 taking the three months' average consumption for the period prior to December, 2004.