CYRIAC Vs. K S E BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I shall state the facts in O.P. No. 3005 of 1983 as the pleadings therein are complete and it involves a point additional to O.P. No. 2866 of 1983.

(2.) The petitioner is having two industrial service connections with consumer Nos. 2207 and 2628 respectively. Both these connections are three phase connections. The first of these connections was given on 18-10-1975 and the other on 29-3-1978 when the unit was expanded. There are separate meters installed for these connections and the petitioner has been paying the consumption charges demanded as per the meter readings. While so, the petitioner was served with two demand notices Exts.P1 and P2 calling upon him to pay what was termed as arrears from 18-10-1975 to 18-3-1983 in case of connection consumer No. 2207 and from 29-3-1978 to 8-3-1983 in case of connection consumer No. 2628. The amounts demanded were Rs. 1,49,293.55 and Rs. 1,17,855.34 respectively. Petitioner was threatened with disconnection if the amounts were not paid before 14-4-1983. He therefore filed this original petition and obtained an interim order of stay of disconnection. The petitioner contended that he had been paying the charges regularly as per the meter readings, and if the meter was not functioning properly for any reason, the respondents were bound to make reference of the dispute to the Electrical Inspector under S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, (the Act) and that they cannot make demand for such additional amounts without such reference. There was also a point raised about violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had a further contention that he had been manufacturing rubber products and marketing the same at prices commensurate with the electric charges paid by him hitherto. The unit itself is a small scale unit financed by banks and other institutions and if additional demand is to be made, it will lead to calamitous results as the petitioner cannot recover the price which would have been charged for the goods already supplied if the electricity charges were on the scales contemplated by Exts.P1 and P2. A plea of estoppel by representation is therefore raised against the demands made in Exts.P1 and P2.

(3.) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents points out that the petitioner was having three phase connections. The meters and the current transformers installed in the premises were tested for accuracy and the connection verified on 26-3-1983 by the Works Manager, T.M.R. Division of the Board on receipt of a request from the Assistant Executive Engineer at Ettumannoor. It was then noted that the CT connection to the first element was in reverse polarity resulting in reverse torque. Out of the three phases (all of which have to run forward) one was therefore in reverse and/cancelled the forward torque in another. Only the third one was in forward motion with the result the meter recorded only one third of the actual consumption. It was based on this discovery at the inspection on 26-3-1983 that the bills were revised and additional amounts demanded from the petitioner for two third of the actual consumption.