IMPORTANT POINTS:
• The additional demand over and above the regular demand raised through the bills issued for that period and already paid by the consumer, is not sustainable. The right to raise additional bills stood lost for its failure to proceed in accordance with Section 26(6).
• The KSEB did not at any point of time during that period, feel that the consumption of electricity during that period had dropped and deemed it fit to refer the meter for examination by the Electrical Inspector. Had they done so, Regulation 31(c) could have been applied to estimate the consumption for that period. But not having done so, there is no other option left to the KSEB for realisation of the amount for the period, where there is no conclusion by the Electrical Inspector to the effect that the meter was faulty during that period.

Ashok Menon, J.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.7.2015 in Writ Petition No.17025/2007, the petitioner is before us.

2. The facts in brief are thus:-

The appellant/petitioner is the proprietor of Hotel Arcadia in Kottayam. The fourth respondent-Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) is supplying electricity to the petitioner's hotel which bears consumer No.3975. On 02.04.2001, following the request of the petitioner consequent to the burning of the electricity meter, it was replaced. The monthly bills raised subsequently were being paid without fail. The petitioner contends that on 20.9.2001, without putting the petitioner to notice, the KSEB replaced the meter again and installed another one. To the surprise of the petitioner, he received Ext.P1 bill for short assessment for the period from April, 2001 to September, 2001 for an amount of Rs.1,59,665/-. The petitioner states that the KSEB had never informed that the meter was defective. Ext.P1 states that the average consumption was 7845 units per month, based on the consumption for a period of six months consequent to the change of the meter. WP(C) No.30468/2005 was filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 and this Court directed the petitioner to raise his objections against Ext.P1 before the concerned Assistant Engineer.

3. Objection filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was considered and disposed of vide Ext.P2 order, holding that the meter was replaced on 20.9.2001, since it was detected to be faulty or defective. After replacement of the meter, the average consumption came to 7845 units per month, while prior to the replacement, the total consumption for over a period of six months was only 29476 units. The Assistant Audit Officer of the KSEB directed preparation of a short assessment bill for six months period prior to the change of the meter. The appeal was dismissed.

4. The petitioner once again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2345/2006 challenging Exts.P1 and P2 stating that those are in violation of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that if the meter was faulty or defective, KSEB was bound to give notice to the petitioner, before it was replaced. If at all the meter was defective or incorrect, it should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector and the KSEB could not have taken a unilateral decision to replace the meter without notice to the petitioner. For that reason alone, Ext.P1 short assessment bill is without any authority of law, illegal and unsustainable.

5. KSEB contended that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF). Vide Ext.P3 judgment dated 25.9.2006, this Court disposed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move the CGRF for redressal of his grievances.

6. In consequence to Ext.P3, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent -CGRF. After hearing the petitioner, the appeal was dismissed vide Ext.P4 order. It was observed that the burnt meter that was replaced on 02.4.2001 with a new one, had only a short span of life and due to the defect, the consumption recorded was very low.

7. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent-Ombudsman. The appeal was allegedly rejected without application of mind vide Ext.P5. The petitioner was served with Ext.P6 notice demanding a sum of Rs.2,20,338/-which is inclusive of penal interest on the sum originally claimed as per Ext.P1.

8. Thus, the petitioner approached this Court again with a Writ Petition on the ground that Exts.P1, P2, P4, P5 and P6 are all illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply and from taking any coercive action based on the demand made.

9. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment found that Regulation 31C of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Ene