IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 992 of 2011(Y) PETITIONER: --------------- JAYACHANDRAN,S/O.N.SADASIVA PANICKER, AGED 45, DIRECTOR,M/S K.FOUR EXTRUSIONS, NANGIARKULANGARA.P.O,HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690593. BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (SHANTHIGIRI) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUGIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, HARIPPAD DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 514. BY SC, K.S.E.B SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.992 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. On 5.10.2009 the Sub Engineer concerned conducted an inspection of the premises to which electricity connection was provided. He noticed that the petitioner had not installed capacitors in the motors installed in his premises. Ext.P1 notice was thereupon issued demanding payment of the sum of Rs.2,83,733/- as penal charges. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed a complaint dated 23.1.2010 before the Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum, Central Region, Ernakulam. The main contention raised by the petitioner was that no inspection was conducted prior to 5.10.2009 and therefore, penal charges cannot be levied with effect from an anterior date. The Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum accepted the said contention and directed the bill to be revised. The Forum held that the levy shall be made only with effect from the date of inspection, namely 5.10.2009. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Electricity W.P(C).No.992 of 2011 -:2:- Ombudsman on 13.7.2010. In that appeal he contended that as no notice had been given regarding the insufficiency of the capacitors, levy of penal charges is not justified. By Ext.P4 order passed on 18.11.2010 the State Electricity Ombudsman directed that the levy of penal charges can continue only till the capacitors are installed. The Electricity Board was directed to inspect the premises and verify whether the claim of the appellant that he has installed adequate capacitors is true or not. The Ombudsman also directed that if the petitioner has installed capacitors the penal charges shall be stopped from the date of inspection. The Assistant Engineer accordingly conducted an inspection on 30.11.2010 and thereafter issued Ext.P6 demanding payment of the sum of Rs.1,42,483/- as penal charges. In other words, the demand in Ext.P1 was revised. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he had purchased three capacitors on 9.1.2010 and that the capacitors were installed shortly thereafter, but no inspection was made till 5.10.2009. The petitioner has however, no case that after the capacitors were installed he had given notice to the Assistant Engineer in charge of the Electrical Section. He had no such case before the Consumers Grievance Redressal W.P(C).No.992 of 2011 -:3:- Forum or the State Electricity Ombudsman. The only document produced in this writ petition in support of the new plea is Ext.P5 letter dated 22.11.2010 which is styled as a reminder sent to the Assistant Engineer requesting him to inspect the premises and to issue a certificate. The said letter was sent after Ext.P4 order was passed by the State Electricity Ombudsman. It does not refer to any earlier letter sent by the respondent. Therefore, it is evident that till Ext.P5 letter was sent on 22.11.2010 the petitioner had not informed the Assistant Engineer of the fact that he had installed adequate number of capacitors. Ext.P4 order was passed on 18.11.2010. The inspection referred to in Ext.P6 was conducted on 30.11.2010 within a week from the date of receipt of Ext.P5. It cannot therefore be said that there was undue delay on the part of the Board and its officials in inspecting the premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner has installed adequate number of capacitors. In such circumstances no reliance can be placed on Ext.P3 invoice to hold that the petitioner had installed adequate number of capacitors long before Exts.P2 and P4 orders were passed. By Ext.P6 penal charges had been levied only from 5.10.2009, the date of the first inspection, to 29.11.2010, the date of the second inspection pursuant to W.P(C).No.992 of 2011 -:4:- Ext.P4 order. Ext.P6 invoice is also not under challenge in this writ petition. I am therefore, satisfied that Ext.P6 invoice has been properly raised in terms of the directions issued by the State Electricity Ombudsman in Ext.P4 order. The relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot, therefore, be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.992 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 24th January, 2011