IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 11784 of 2007(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ HAJARA ,W/O.V.K.IBRAHIM, VADAKAYIL HOUSE,PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-15. BY ADV. MR.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECREARY, VAIDUTHI BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION,THEVARA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.11784/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MAHASSAR DTD. 27.3.07. P2:- COPY OF THE DEMAND AND DISCONNECTION NOTICE DTD. 28.3.07. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.11784 OF 2007 (C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioned is the owner of a building where supply of electric energy is availed of under LT-VIIA tariff with Consumer No.2421. 2. On 27.3.2007, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises of the petitioner and prepared Ext.P1 mahazar. It would appear that they found several irregularities committed by the consumer. Further, the connected load was found much higher than the authorized connected load. Accordingly, petitioner was issued Ext.P2 a bill demanding Rs.87,859/-. It was thereupon that this writ petition is filed. 3. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioned is that the building in question is an old one and that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged in Ext.P1 mahazar. It is stated that therefore the demand made by Ext.P2 is illegal. 4. First of all, Ext.P1 contains several factual findings, which cannot be impugned in a proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Though section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provided an appellate remedy the petitioner has not availed the same. WPC .No.11784/07 :2 : 5. The question is whether the petitioner could have been penalized in the light of the findings in Ext.P1 mahazar. A reading of Ext.P1 mahazar shows that several irregularities were committed to avoid correct recording of the energy consumed and if that be so loss has been caused to the Board with corresponding profit to the petitioner. In such circumstances it is a clear case of theft of energy and if so the respondents are entitled to levy penal charges on the petitioner in terms of the regulations framed by them. If that be so, I cannot find fault with Ext.P2. 6. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order dated 4.4.2007, the petitioner has paid 50% of the amount demanded and on that basis supply was restored. Therefore what remains is to be paid is only 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.P2. Therefore, it is directed that if the petitioner remits the said balance amount in three equal monthly instalments along with monthly charges, commencing from November, 2009, electric connection to the petitioner's building will not be disconnected and in case payment is not made the respondent is free to recover the said amount. Writ Petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC .No.11784/07 :3 :