Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2519
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ
vs
WRIT APPEAL 1793/2013
SRI.S.MURALI, SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI, SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI, SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Authorities can estimate electricity consumption based on inspection evidence and historical usage patterns, especially in cases of meter tampering.
Headnote:
Electricity - Writ Petition - Act Section List - The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition concerning electricity billing disputes, noting evidence of tampering with the meter and the appellant's inability to justify discrepancies in consumption reported by authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, managing a plywood manufacturing firm, challenged an electricity bill after inspections indicated tampering and incorrect meter readings. This led to a series of writ petitions, culminating in a final dismissal by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found evidence of tampering with the electric meter, corroborated by inconsistent consumption patterns. The authorities' conclusion regarding over-recording was justified.
Issues: Whether the inspections and subsequent billing reflected accurate electricity consumption and if the appellant's challenge to the verdict had merit.
Ratio Decidendi: The authority's reliance on inspection records and consumption patterns to validate the billing was upheld, reflecting that discrepancies in reported usage justified the contested charges.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's ruling.
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No.12259/13 filed by the appellant. The challenge in the writ petition was primarily against Exts.P5 and P7.
2. The appellant is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm manufacturing plywood. They are availing of power supply under LT-IV tariff with a sanctioned connected load of 84 kW. Their premises was inspected on 30/7/05 and Ext.P9 is the mahazar. Following the inspection, they were issued Ext.P5 bill. That bill was challenged by filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, the premises was inspected again on 18/5/2006. The mahazar prepared on that occasion is Ext.P13. Thereafter also, bill was issued and that was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.14884/06. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment relegating the appellant to file objection to the bill. While so, another bill for the month of May 2006 was issued, which again was challenged in WP (C) No.16667/06. In the meanwhile, the appeal filed by the appellant against Ext.P5 bill was disposed of and a demand was raised, which came to be challenged again in WP(C) No.16188/07. That case was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment setting side the demand and ordering reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, fresh order was passed confirming Ext.P5. The appeal filed against that order was also dismissed by Ext.P7. It was in these circumstances, challenging Ext.P7, the writ petition was filed. Learned Judge referring to the entire history of the case dismissed the writ petition. It is accordingly that this writ appeal is filed.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we are inclined to think that there is no substance in the appeal. Reading of Exts.P9 and P13 mahazars itself show that there was an attempt of tampering and pilferage of electricity. The fact that the consumption recorded was lower than the actual quantity consumed is evident from Ext.P7 order which shows the consumption pattern including the change thereof subsequent to July, 2005 when the meter was replaced. That apart, the appellant did not have any explanation justifying this wide disparity in the huge increase in the quantity consumed. These circumstances fully justify the inference drawn by the authorities that there was interference with the meter resulting in over recording of the energy consumed and estimation of the energy consumed by the appellant. In our view, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and we, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 5/2/14, consequent on the non payment of the amounts due, the supply of energy to the premises of the appellant has been disconnected. He also stated that, as on date, the amount demanded by the Board is about `18,00,000/-. On this basis and also stating that about 30 employees are rendered unemployed, learned counsel requested that the appellant may be permitted to pay the amount due to the Board in instalments.
6. We have considered this submission also and taking note of all the circumstances pointed out, we direct that the appellant shall immediately pay an amount of `5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). On payment of the above amount along with the charges for reconnection, the supply to the appellant's premises will be restored forthwith. The balance amount now due from the appellant shall also be paid by him in four instalments. The first instalment shall be paid along with the energy charges due for the Month of February, 2014 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid along with the energy charges of the succeeding months. It is also made clear that in case appellant commits default in paying any one of the instalments as indicated above, the respondents
