Relying on the decisions in Punjab State Electricity Board and another vs. Ashwani Kumar (CDJ 1997 SC 256) and the unreported decision of this Court in R.S.A No.949/2004 dated 15.07.2001, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the suit itself is not maintainable and the courts below have erred both in law and on facts in trying the suit. According to the learned counsel, reliance placed on the decision in Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1964 Supreme Court 322) cannot be justified. It is also contended that since the plaintiff had an alternate remedy available to him, he should have availed of the same and without taking recourse to the statutory remedy, he should not have approached the Civil Court for redressal of his
grievances. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
2. The plaintiff was slapped with a bill Ext.A1 to which he says that he filed objection as per Ext.A2. The Kerala State Electricity Board has got a contention that they never received Ext.A2 at all. According to the Board, on inspection the meter was found to read only 1/3rd of the consumption and the meter was replaced and bill was issued. They further contended that the amount covered by the bill was not paid. Even a plea of estoppal is also taken.
3. It is significant to notice that the plaintiff instituted the suit characterising Ext.A1 as totally illegal and in violative of the procedures of law. He disputed that there was any inspection conducted by the officials of the Board and there was replacement of meter as claimed by the Board. Except for the bill Ext.A1, there is nothing to show that what the Board claimed is true.
4. The question is whether the issuance of Ext.A1 bill is in
accordance with law or in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law and if it is violative of norms and procedures, it can certainly be agitated in a Civil Court in view of the decision in Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1964 Supreme Court 322).
5. It is seen that even after the suit was filed, the Board was unable to justify their action with reference to any documents. They claimed that they had inspected the premises and found the meter defective and had replaced the same. All these, one may notice must be reflected in the records maintained by the Board. Neither at the trial stage nor at the appellage stage, the Board took any effort to produce any of the documents to substantiate their contentions. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants may not be applicable on the facts of the case. It is significant to notice that even during trial at the appellate stage, the Board was not able to justify the issuance of Ext.A1 bill. It justifies the grievance of the plaintiff that the bill was issued without any justification or authority.
It was the above factors which had persuaded the court below to accept the plea of the plaintiff that the suit is maintainable and also to hold that the bill is illegal. It could not be said that the finding of the court below on the basis of evidence on record is either perverse or not in accordance with law.
This appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.