Velayudhan K.V vs The Assistant Engineer and The Deputy Chief Engineer Electrical

P.N. Ravindran, J.—The Petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. Thepremises to which the electricity connection has been given wasinspected on 23.3.2009 by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Changaramkulam. The inspection revealed theft ofenergy. The Petitioner thereupon filed an application u/s 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for compounding theoffence and the offence was allowed to be compounded onpayment of `.36,000/-, which the Petitioner remitted on26.3.2009. Consequent on the detection of unauthorisedextraction of energy Ext.P1 provisional notice demanding paymentof the sum of `.2,02,319/- was issued to the Petitioner.

Aggrieved thereby the Petitioner filed an appeal before the DeputyChief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Tirur. By Ext.P3 order passed on 23.12.2009 the appellate authority held that though the Petitioner had extracted energy unauthorisedly the levy of energy charges as claimed in Ext.P1 is not sustainable. The appellate authority accordingly directed Ext.P1 invoice to be revised in the manner indicated in Ext.P3. The first Respondent thereupon issued Ext.P4 invoice demanding payment of the sum of `.47,597/-. Aggrieved thereby the Petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the appellate authority. By Ext.P6 order passed on 16.9.2010 the said appeal was rejected on the ground that as the appellate authority has already exercised the appellate jurisdiction and directed revision of Ext.P1 invoice an appeal would not lie from Ext.P4. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the Petitioner is that before Ext.P6 order was passed he was not put on notice or heard and that in view of Ext.P3 order passed by the appellate authority the first Respondent was bound to revise Ext.P1 invoice in the manner indicated in Ext.P3 and that having not been done, Ext.P4 invoice is liable to be varied.

Sri.P.P. Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board, submitted on instructions that the first Respondent will revise Ext.P1 invoice in the light of the directions issued in Ext.P3 appellate order and issue a revised bill to the Petitioner.

A reading of the writ petition discloses that the Petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the failure of the first Respondent to comply with the direction issued in Ext.P3 appellate order. In view of the offer made by the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board that the first Respondent will revise Ext.P1 invoice in the light of the findings and observations in Ext.P3 order I am of the opinion that no further orders are called for in this writ petition except to direct the first Respondent to suitably revise Ext.P1 invoice in the light of the findings and observations in Ext.P3 order and to issue a revised invoice in the place of Ext.P4 expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from today. Till such time the electricity supply to the Petitioner''s premises shall not be disconnected for non-payment of Ext.P4 invoice.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.