IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 11562 of 1999(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.PANAKKAL TOURIST HOME, REP: BY ITS PARTNER BIJU P. JOSE, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH – 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1) STATE OF KERALA, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 004. 3) EXECUTIVE ENGINNER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM : 682 018. 4) ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEETR, KSEB, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOCHI : 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.18667/1999 IN OP.NO.11562/1999-B. DISMISSED. 22.2.2008. Sd/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIOINER'S EXHIBIT:- P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DB-2-1/95-96 DTD.8.2.1996 OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. P2: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.15.2.1996 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE SIGNED BY DY.CHIEF ENGINNER. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DB-2-1/9596 DTD.1.8.1996 TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DB2-1/96-97 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH ESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE BILL NO.04613 DTD.7.9.1997 OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.BB/CL/18/PC/98-99 DTD.5.4.1999 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. P8: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.02481 DTD.5.4.1999 OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. P9: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.6.4.1999 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. P10: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.13.4.1999 FROM THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER. P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.4.1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOINER TO THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. P12: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD.19.4.1999 OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. REPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. (TRUE COPY) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.11562 of 1999-B. ========================= Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. The petitioner is running a lodge and there are various electric appliances in use there. The rooms are being rented out by the petitioner for the purpose of the customers. In 1996 the Board had to introduce power cut due to acute shortage of power. By Ext.P1 dated 8.2.1996 the petitioner was informed that if the petitioner consumes energy in excess of the monthly quota fixed, a penalty at double the tariff rate will be levied for the excess unit consumed. The petitioner had been remitting various amounts as per the bills mentioned in the original petition. By Ext.P8 notice the respondents placed a demand for Rs.53,503/- which was objected to by the petitioner by submitting Ext.P9. In Ext.P9 the petitioner took a stand that he had been remitting the amounts from time to OP.No.11562 of 1999-B. -: 2 :- time and therefore there is no reason to impose any additional liability on him. That was replied by Ext.P10. On receipt of Ext.P10 the petitioner submitted another letter Ext.P11 disputing his liability. As per Ext.P12 the 4th respondent has granted ten instalments to remit the amount due. The petitioner has approached this Court by raising various grounds to challenge the above demand. 2. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that the petitioner is a low tension consumer under the category VII commercial. The fact that 35% power cut was imposed on industrial consumers and non domestic consumers having connected load of 10 KW and above is admitted. On imposition of the power cut the Board imposed various conditions and one of the important conditions is that, “if the consumption exceeds the monthly quota the excess over quota shall be charged at two times the ruling tariff and supply shall also be disconnected for the period required to adjust the excess consumption over the quota subject to a minimum period of four days. The excess over OP.No.11562 of 1999-B. -: 3 :- quota shall be debited to next months quota of energy and balance alone shall be the quota for the month.” Another important condition is that, “if the quota of energy allotted for a particular month is not utilised in that month, carry over of the unused quota of energy shall not be permitted.” As far as the petitioner is concerned, for the month of February, 1996 the quota was 1123 units and from March, 1996 onwards it was at 1043 units. Demand notices were given to the petitioner in advance so as to regulate his consumption accordingly. The respondents have got a case that the petitioner had consumed excess energy than the quota allotted during the period of power cut and hence he is liable to pay the charges claimed by Ext.P8. In para.6 of the counter affidavit it is pointed out that the petitioner was also liable to be billed in accordance with the instructions of the Board order dated 11.1.1996. It is further contended that a reassessment has to be made in view of mistake crept in the implementation of the said order. It is also contended that the petitioner has paid the first instalment on 20.4.1999. OP.No.11562 of 1999-B. -: 4 :- 3. In view of the averments in the counter affidavit the case pleaded by the petitioner cannot be accepted. As far as the supply and distribution of energy is concerned, the Board had been acting as empowered under the Electricity Act and the Electricity Supply Act at that point of time. It is well settled that the State Government is only laying down the general policy and it is open to the Board to issue appropriate guidelines from time to time to monitor the situation. Therefore it cannot be said that condition No.3 in Ext.P1 is arbitrary in the sense that it does not reflect any of the ground realities. When the Board specifies a particular quota and has issued prior notice to the consumer showing the quota available for particular periods, the Board is well within its power to impose a further condition that the excess consumption of quota shall be deducted from the next month's quota. These instructions have been issued in public interest and the same is not an isolated act against a particular consumer also. 4. In that view of the matter, there is nothing wrong in the demand raised by the respondents by way of Ext.P8. The OP.No.11562 of 1999-B. -: 5 :- petitioner has not disputed the averments in the counter affidavit by filing a reply affidavit. 5. Therefore the original petition fails. As per order in CMP.No.18667/1999 this Court had granted interim stay which was in force during the pendency of the original petition. Hence the petitioner will be allowed to remit the balance amount in six equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid before 20th of March, 2008 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 15th of every succeeding months. The last instalment should cover the entire balance amount. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-