SATHIYASEELAN Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the demand notices issued by the Board in terms of Exts.P13 and P15. According to the petitioner, he was the owner of three shop rooms having Consumer Nos.5737, 5738 and 5739. There was some issue regarding mistaken readings, by which petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.1,24,084/ - in respect of Consumer No.5737. The matter came to be challenged and ultimately as per the directions issued by this Court, Ext.P13 order was passed by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Nedumangad on 20/4/2006. By virtue of the said directions, total arrears outstanding against Consumer No.5737 was computed for the period from 1/96 to

(2.) /2006 as Rs.1,83,304/ - including surcharge. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer (General). Ext.P14 is the memorandum of appeal. It is contended that no orders were passed in the appeal and in the meantime, recovery steps were taken pursuant to Ext.P13 order. Ext.P15 is the revenue recovery notice issued under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act by which the amount demanded is Rs.1,98,759/ - with subsequent interest and costs. It is the contention of the petitioner that without adjudicating on the appeal filed by the petitioner, no action can be taken pursuant to the demand notice issued by way of Ext.P15. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 wherein it is stated that there had been instances where service connections were dismantled for non payment of the amounts due. However, by intervention of this Court, the service was reconnected. Still, they did not pay the amount and arrears as on 11/3/2002 had come to Rs.1,22,110/ -. However, the petitioner filed OP No.7508/2002 and by judgment dated 1/10/2003, direction was issued to remit Rs.25,000/ - towards the demand and to consider the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the same as WA No.1766/2004, which was disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. The petitioner remitted Rs.20,000/ - on 24/11/2004, but further payments were not made. Petitioner was given an opportunity for hearing on 20/1/2005. A hearing was fixed on 21/8/2005. He did not turn up for hearing, however, reconnection was given to Consumer No.5737. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3304/2006 and by judgment dated 1/3/2006, this Court directed the Executive Engineer to pass a just order on hearing the petitioner, which resulted in the order dated 20/4/2006. Since the petitioner failed to remit the arrears even after the above decision of the 2nd respondent, service connection was dismantled on 25/4/2007 after serving dismantling notice dated 15/3/2007. Ext.R1(a) is the said notice. In Ext.R1(a), the total amount demanded is Rs.1,95,211/ -.

(3.) The main contention urged by the petitioner is that in the absence of the appeal being considered by the competent authority, there is no reason to demand the aforesaid amount. In Ext.P13, it is stated that on verifying the meter reading register and other connected records, there was no inter change of meters. The bills issued were for the actual consumption in the premises. What happened is that there was an inter change of readings furnished in the meter reading register for the period 2/01 to 12/01. For the said period, actual reading of Consumer No.5737 was posted against Consumer No.5739 and vice versa. The mistake was noticed and revised bills were issued to both the consumers. As per the order, there was no consumption in the premises of Consumer No.5739 and the meter reading was 728 during the above period. Accordingly, revised bill was issued to Consumer No.5739 during 12/01 giving credit facility in future bills. The consumption noted against consumer No.5739 was charged against Consumer No.5737. It is also submitted that Consumer No.5737 was not disconnected w.e.f. 1995. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there was no excess or illegal demand against the consumer and the bills issued are liable to be paid by consumer after adjusting the amount already remitted. The total arrears computed against Consumer No.5737 for the period 1/96 to 2/06 is Rs.1,83,304/ -. It is apparent from the aforesaid factual situation that the issue is with reference to Consumer No.5737. A perusal of Ext.P13 would indicate that no charges were being paid during the said period on account of the pending disputes. The amount collected is from January, 1996 to February, 2006.