IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20657 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. P.VENKITA RAOS,A FIRM HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT DOOR NO.28/2161,FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY PARTNER K.GOPAL RAO,AGED 67 YEARS,S/O.KRISHNA RAO,RESIDING AT T.C.NO.37/244, UTSAVAMADOM COLONY,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.GOPALA RAO,PARTNER P.VENKITA RAOS, S/O.KRISHNA RAO,RESIDING AT T.C.NO.37/244, UTSAVAMADOM COLONY,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, FORT SECTION,TRIVANDRUM,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL CIRCLE (URBAN),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(APPELLATE AUTHORITY). SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20657 OF 2009 (B) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1st petitioner is a firm engaged in textile business. They are availing of supply of electricity under LT VII A with a connected load of 14 KW. 2. The officers of the Board inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 20/1/2008. On such inspection, it was detected that the petitioner had unauthorised additional load of 52 KW over and above the registered connected load of 14KW. A site mahazar was prepared and a penal bill for unauthorised additional load of Rs.6,87,039 was issued. Although the petitioner approached this Court challenging the bill, finally the petitioner had filed objection to the demand and the Assistant Engineer passed Ext.P16 order. In Ext.P16, the penal bill imposed on the petitioner was confirmed. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal, which resulted in Ext.P18. In Ext.P18 also, the finding that there was unauthorised additional load of 52KW, the demand has been confirmed and the Assistant Engineer was directed to issue an WPC 20657/09 :2 : arrear bill with details to the petitioner. However, interest or surcharge during the pendency of the appeal was waived. Accordingly, petitioner was issued Ext.P20 demanding balance amount of Rs.9,54,833/- for the period up to July 2009. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings the writ petition is filed. 4. The fact that there was unauthorised additional connected load of 52 KW is not in dispute. However, the contention raised is that unauthorised additional load does not amount to unauthorised use of electricity, as provided in Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act to attract penalty as provided therein. 5. In my view, this contention is devoid of any merit. First of all unauthorised use of electricity has been defined in the explanation to Section 126 as meaning 'use of energy by means not authorised by the authority or licensee'. In this case, admittedly the petitioner has connected electrical devices resulting in unauthorised additional load of 52 KW and that certainly is unauthorised use of energy as defined by the Board. 6. Secondly levy of penalty on energy charges is what is WPC 20657/09 :3 : disputed. That has been levied in terms of Ext.P21 board order dated 7/2/2008 which is not challenged in this writ petition. 7. Therefore on both these grounds, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp