ALIYARKUNJU Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner was before us in this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 34365/2008 dated 11.1.2017. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P8 proceedings of the Assistant Engineer, KSEB and Ext.P11 order dismissing the appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("the Act", for short). The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of wire-cut bricks and is a consumer of KSEB bearing consumer No. 10696. The third respondent conducted an inspection at the petitioner's premises and found that the electric meter was disconnected and some tampering was done. The petitioner contended that the third respondent himself had removed the electric meter and cut open the seals for the purpose of inspecting the internal mechanism of the meter. However, the petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that a provisional bill (Ext.P1) was served on him demanding a sum of Rs. 1,99,579.00 on 17.8.2007, taking into consideration the monthly consumption as 2800 units for a period of 12 months. The petitioner challenged the provisional bill before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 28937/2007. This Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in pursuance to which Ext.P2 order was made on 11.10.2007 declining the representation of the petitioner, and consequently, Ext.P3 final bill was issued. The petitioner once again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 31767/2007 which too was disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to issue copy of the mahazar to the petitioner that was prepared during the inspection and to hear the matter afresh. The petitioner also made a request to get the meter tested by the fifth respondent Electrical Inspector. After the inspection, Ext.P7 report was filed which states thus:

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P7 report being placed before the fourth respondent, he did not give any importance to that report contradicting the statement in the mahazar, and went ahead to issue Ext.P8 order upholding the provisional bill for Rs. 1,99,579.00 and ordered that to be treated as the final bill. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 by filing WP(C) No. 9473/2008. This Court as per Ext.P9 judgment disposed of the Writ Petition directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal as provided under Sec. 127 of the Act. The appeal that was preferred was disposed of as per Ext.P11 order dated 5.11.2008. The appellate authority modified the impugned order and re-assessed at 16KW @ 65% load factor for 8 hours per day for 20 days per month for 10 months at 2 times normal rate. The petitioner was still aggrieved and hence, challenged Exts.P8 and P11 final assessment orders in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The main contention of the appellant/petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that Exts.P8 and P11 orders were passed without any importance being given to Ext.P7 report of the fifth respondent, wherein it is very clearly stated that there is no evidence of any tampering as is mentioned in Ext.P5 site mahazar. After considering rival contentions raised by both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the report of the Electrical Inspector by itself would not help the petitioner in overcoming the finding as per Exts.P8 and P11 to the effect that he has tampered with the meter and needs to be visited with penal action.