IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14956 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SRI.MAHASAKTHI MILLS LIMITED, VALIANADUKKALAM, NATTUKKAL POST, CHITTUR TK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CON NO. 18/3256 HT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14956 OF 2009 (L) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an H T Consumer having a contract demand of 498 KVA. According to the petitioner, in April, 2008 they applied for an additional contract demand of 300 KVA. It is stated that subsequent to the application, there was an inspection by respondents 3 and 4 and Ext.P1 is the mahazar, which shows that the total connected load in the premise was 688.460 KW and that there was an unauthorised additional load of 174.832 KW. On that basis, by Exts.P2 and P3, petitioner was called upon to remit an amount of Rs.30,34,094/- 2. An appeal was filed and that was disposed of by Ext.P5 order of the 2nd respondent directing to revise the demand made on the petitioner w.e.f. April, 2008. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. Counsel submits that on the application filed by them for additional contract demand, if orders were passed in time, there would not have been any unauthorised additional load as now found, based on which the impugned demand is made. WPC 14956/09 :2 : 3. The fact that an application has been made by itself does not in any event mean that there is justification for the petitioner to avail of unauthorised additional load. The very fact that the petitioner themselves say that they have applied for regularisation of this additional connected load, show that unauthorised additional connected load was being used. Therefore, Exts.P2, P3 and P5 cannot be faulted and this amount have to be paid. 4. Be that as it may, having regard to the submission of the petitioner that their application made in 2008 for additional contract demand is pending before the 2nd respondent, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall consider such application and pass orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. It is made clear that this judgment does not in any manner exonerate or dilute the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount that is now demanded as per Exts.P2, P3 and P5. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp