IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 10884 of 2002(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.PRINCY WORLD TRAVELS (P) LIMITED G.C.D.A.COMPLEX,MARINE DRIVE,ERNAKULAM BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION,CENTRAL,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-18 BY ADVS.MR.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & R2 MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R.1TO3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.19141/2002 IN OP. NO.10884/2002 DISMISSED 10.06.2009 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CONNECTED LOAD DETAILS PREPARED BY THE CONCERNED JUNIOR ENGINEER. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 17.1.02 WAS ISUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3;- COPY OF THE DEMAND FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 47,015/-. P4:- COPY OF THE BILL DT. 31.1.02 DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 37,016/-. P5:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT. 31.10.92 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.8.93 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23.5.01 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR. P8:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 13.2.02 IN OP. NO.4929/02. P9:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.38 DT. 4.3.02. P10:- COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT. 19.3.02. P11:- COPY OF THE REMINDER DT. 2.4.02. P12:- COPY OF THE DEMAND BILL NO.2537 DT. 30.3.02 FOR RS. 36,1924/-. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P. No.10884 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a private limited company, is a consumer of the Kerala State Electricity Board vide consumer No.10904 (LT VII A category) coming under the jurisdiction of the Electrical Major Section, Central, Ernakulam. In this writ petition, Ext.P12 is challenged as the same is contrary to Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy as also Section 79(j) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. It is also prayed for a direction directing the respondents not to enforce Ext.P12 to the extent of the levy of penalty for fixed as well as current charges and also not to enforce disconnection of supply. It is also prayed for regularisation of the additional connected load. Further, a declaration is sought to the effect that no penalty can be levied in terms of the existing Regulation 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy on the O.P.10884/2002 -:2:- ground of exceeding the connected load. 2. A counter affidavit is seen filed stating that though the sanctioned load of the petitioner is only 5 K.W., the petitioner had exceeded the allotted load and, therefore, under Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of supply of Electrical Energy, the Board is entitled to bill at three times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for three months prior to the date of detection of the misuse. So according to the Board, Ext.P12 is strictly in accordance with law. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing counsel for the KSEB. 4. The learned Standing counsel for the KSEB made available to me a copy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1306/2007, wherein the Division Bench by referring to a judgment in W.A.No.1231/2003 stated that “in the judgment in W.A.No.1231/2003 in paragraphs 10 and 12, it was also stated that in all cases where maximum penalty is imposed, it should be considered O.P.10884/2002 -:3:- on the facts of each case and discretion for imposing the said penalty is left to the Board Authorities”. Accordingly, by the above judgment, the Division Bench found that no reason is stated in Exts.P1 and P2 therein for imposing the maximum penalty. Therefore, the impugned judgment therein and Exts.P1 and P2 were set aside and the Assistant Executive Engineer therein was directed to hear the writ petitioners and pass a detailed order pursuance of which further steps can be taken. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that O.P.No.4929/2002 was preferred by the very same petitioner against the order of penalty for unauthorised connected load. Another learned Judge of this Court by order dated 9.6.2006 in the said writ petition quashed the impugned demands stating that the liability of the petitioner therein shall, only be for the penalty for fixed charged portion, and accordingly directed the Board to issue revised demand. O.P.10884/2002 -:4:- 6. The Board has not filed any appeal against the judgment dated 9.6.2006 in O.P. No.4929 of 2002 and as such, the said judgment became final wherein the petitioner is the same person. Therefore, the Board cannot adopt different approach against the same person/consumer. Hence, the petitioner's claim for similar treatment as in the case of O.P.No.4929/2002 cannot be ignored. 7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P12 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- O.P.10884/2002 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. 10884 of 2002 JUDGMENT Dated:.10.6.2009.