J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is availing of supply of electrical energy in his residential premises with Consumer No.214 and in his shop premises with Consumer No.437. In September, 1999, he was issued bills demanding Rs.5,275/- in respect of Consumer No.214 and Rs.12,338/- in respect of Consumer No.437. That was challenged before the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Perambra by filing OS 142/99 resulting in Ext.P1 judgment where the Civil Court held that the respondents should issue a revised bill based on the average consumption of energy for three months succeeding the date on which theft was found, as provided under Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy .

2. Long thereafter, in purported compliance of Ext.P1, petitioner was issued Ext.P6 bill demanding Rs.2,785/- in respect of Consumer No.214 and Rs.5,688/- in respect of Consumer No.437. Along with this amount, surcharge was added and the total amount demanded is Rs.37,628/-. Petitioner contends that the method of calculation adopted in Ext.P6 bill is not in compliance with the WPC 19999/09 :2 :

directions of the Civil Court as contained in Ext.P1 judgment, which was confirmed in AS 14/05 and RSA 357/09. Complainin