IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 14710 of 2004(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.DAVID (CONSUMER NO.11643), THOPPIL AGGREGATES, KOKKAPPILLY P.O., VIA.THRUVAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PUTHENCRUZ. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.14710/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF POWER ALLOCATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER VIDE NO.DB 2-25/93/94/2141 DATED 18/09-04-1995. P2 : COPY OF MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/09/2003. P3 : COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PUTHENCRUZ DATED 19/09/2003. P4 : COPY OF BILL DATED 26/09/2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETIITONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2003. P6 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.GBI/29/2003-04/3889 DATED 31/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF NOTICE NO.DB/1/2004-05 DATED 27/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8 : COPY OF BILL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9 : COPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, TVM DATED 30/04/2003. P10 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24/05/2004 VIDE NO.BB/3/PTZ/01-02/RR ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14710 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is running a crusher unit. His power allocation is under LT-IV category as evident from Ext.P1 power allocation order. The 1st respondent, Assistant Engineer, conducted an inspection of the petitioner's unit on 19/09/2003 and prepared Ext.P2 mahazar. As per that mahazar it was found that he has unauthorizedly extended the power supply to a shed erected at a distance of 50 meters away from the unit. There was a welding set in that shed having capacity of 12 KVA. The shed was being used for repairing of motor vehicles. Based on Ext.P2, petitioner was served with Ext.P3 bill demanding to pay Rs.1,80,000/- as fixed charge for six months. The extension was treated as a temporary connection to the shed and fixed charge for one day was computed as Rs.500/-. Based on the said assumption, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was demanded under Ext.P3. It was followed by Ext.P4 formal bill demanding the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal before WP(C) No.14710/2004 -2- the Executive Engineer of the KSEB. When the said appeal was pending, the petitioner moved this Court and as per the directions of this Court he paid Rs.30,000/- and further payment was to made based on the result of the appeal. The appeal was heard and disposed of by Ext.P6. The appellate authority found that when the meter reading of the unit was taken in August, the unauthorized extension was not detected. It was only detected in September 2003. So the appellate authority held that the unauthorized connection was there in existence only for a period of one month. So, it was ordered to reduce the demand correspondingly. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P7 notice demanding to pay arrears of electricity charges from October, 2003 to March, 2004. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 to P4 as well as Exts.P6 & P7. 2. The KSEB did not file any counter affidavit. Nobody appeared for the Board also. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The unauthorized extension to the shed is admitted by the petitioner. Going by Ext.P6, the dispute is only regarding the WP(C) No.14710/2004 -3- distance of the shed from the parent unit. Whatever be the distance, it is an unauthorized extension and I find nothing wrong with the stand of the Electricity Board that it should be taken as a temporary connection for the purpose of billing. Originally, the authority issued the bill for six months. The appellate authority rightly reduced the bill treating that the unauthorized connection was subsisting only for a period of one month and substantial relief has been granted to the petitioner. 4. Going by Ext.P7, it can be seen that the same has nothing to do with Ext.P6. Ext.P6 relates to the month of September 2003, whereas Ext.P7 relates to the arrears for the period from October, 2003 to March, 2004. No ground has been made out in the writ petition to impugne Ext.P7, which has nothing to do with Ext.P6. In the result, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg