IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 25TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 29471 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S:

MUHAMMED HAROON P.P AGED 34 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL LATHEEF P P, PATHAYA PARAMBIL, RAHIMAN BAZAR, KOLATHARA,P O CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673655 BY ADV DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, NORTHERN CIRCLE, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI, KERALA , PIN - 682011

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673631

4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 67363

5 THE STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN D.H ROAD & OFFSHORE ROAD, NEAR GANDHI SQUARE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016 BY ADV B.PREMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

16.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is claiming to be a owner/proprietor of M/s Prestige Polymers, a small scale Chappal manufacturing situated at Kozhikode. Earlier, the establishment was under the Electrical Section, Feroke with consumer number 1166319009259 and then it was brought under the Areekkad Electrical Section with consumer No.1167899019163 having a connected load of 37KW with LT IV tariff.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action of the KSEB and seeking the recovery of the amount on account of the mistake in respect of multiplication factor. On 8.10.2020, Sub Engineer of respondent No.3, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical sub-division along with the overseer inspected the industrial premises of the petitioner and prepared a site mahazar and found there was no tampering of the meter which was functioning properly but the multiplication factor (MF) for calculating the energy charges was wrong as the CT used was with CT ratio of 200/5 with resultant MF as 40. Instead of taking multiplication factor as 40, the multiplication factor used for electrical bill was 20 and raised a bill of Rs.7,17,602/-, Ext.P2.

Petitioner approached the Assistant Engineer and protested to the demand raised in Ext.P2 but of no avail. An information under the RTI Act was sought vide application dated 5.2.2021 and 9.2.2021, Ext.P3 and P3(a). The reply Ext.P4 indicated that there was no fault of the petitioner in fact the system required upgradation as the CT should have been in the ratio of 100/5 rather than 200/5. On the basis of the information, petitioner preferred an O.P No.4/2021 before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF- Northern Region). The CRRF vide order dated 19.1.2022 upheld the demand raised in Ext.P2. Against the aforementioned order, an appeal was preferred before the Electricity Ombudsman, which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the averments made in the writ petitions has raised the following submissions:

3. Regulation 113 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code

2014 casts the responsibility on the licencee ie., KSEB regarding the accuracy of the meter. The meter was inspected and it was not suffering from any inherent mistake or over draw of the power than the sanctioned load or unauthorized load.

4. Regulation 152 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code

2014 empowers the Electricity Board to cure the anomalies detected at the premises of the consumer but the fact remains that there was no change in the purpose of use of electricity by the consumer. The inaccuracy in metering cannot be attributed to the petitioner except only to the licencee.

5. Regulation 109 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 provides that it shall be the responsibility of the officials of the licensee to install a proper meter with its accessories such as CT etc. and keep the records properly for the purpose of calculating the energy consumption and then the energy charges.

6. In the light of Section 56 with regar