SRI. P.I. THOMAS M/S. MALABAR CLAY PRODUCTS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P11 appellate order, passed by the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, as also Exts.P12 and P12(a) consequential demand notices issued by the respondents. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner was a consumer of electricity under LT-IV tariff with consumer Code No.3305 and a sanctioned load of 64 KW. The petitioner came under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent for the purposes of supplying electricity. The petitioner was using the said electric supply for his business activities of manufacturing clay products. Pursuant to an inspection of the premises of the Industrial Unit of the petitioner by the Anti Power Theft Squad, Palakkad, Ext.P1 Mahazar came to be drawn up, which indicated that, the meter in the premises of the petitioner had been tampered with by the petitioner. The respondents, therefore, estimated the actual consumption of electricity, and demanded an amount of Rs. 2,43,917/- as per Ext.P4 bill raised on the petitioner. The petitioner, challenged the said demand before the appellate authority. The appellate authority confirmed the demand against the petitioner, after grating certain abatements to the petitioner, and a revised demand, to an extent of Rs. 1,93,475/-, was raised on the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P6, produced in the writ petition. Not satisfied with the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C). No.30062/2007, when he was relegated to a further appeal before the appellate authority, under the Electricity Act. Ext.P11 is the order passed by the appellate authority, which finds against the petitioner on the aspect of tampering of the meter, but grants the petitioner a limited relief of re-calculation of the dues by adopting the load factor of 0.7, in lieu of 0.85 that was adopted by the lower authorities, while confirming the demand against the petitioner. Consequent to Ext.P11 order, the respondents proceeded to issue fresh demand notices, which are produced as Exts.P12 and P12(a) in the writ petition. In Exts.P12 and P12(a), the demand against the petitioner is now quantified at Rs. 2,76,861/-, and after deducting therefrom the amounts already paid by the petitioner, the balance payable by the petitioner is determined as Rs. 1,80,123/-.

(2.) The challenge against Exts.P11 order, and P12 and P12 (a) demand notices, is premised essentially on the contention that the factual aspects stated in the Mahazar, that was drawn up at the time of inspection at the petitioner's premisses, contained a wrong finding that the meter box in the premises of the petitioner had been tampered with. It is the case of the petitioner that the seal on the meter box was intact, and this fact had been noticed by the petitioner, and indicated to the respondents at the time of drawing up of the Mahazar itself. As regards the computation of the demand against the petitioner, it is stated that, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority, which led to Ext.P11 order, was against the demand of Rs. 1,93,475/- that was confirmed against the petitioner by the first appellate authority. It is stated that in an appeal preferred against the said demand, and in a situation where the appellate authority had granted a relief to the petitioner through the adoption of a lower load factor, the petitioner could not have been served with a demand notice demanding a higher amount than what was demanded from him prior to the filing of the appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.