IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 34224 of 2000(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KOKAD PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD., POOVARANI, MALLIKASSERY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR K.T. MATHEW. BY ADVS. MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, MR.PRAKASH PUTHIADAM. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SUB ENGINEER IN-CHARGE, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PAIKA, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NOS.58524/2000 & 486/2001 IN OP.NO.34224/2000 Y DISMISSED 26/05/2009 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DTD. 16/10/2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DTD. 15/11/2000. P3: COPY OF TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ELECTRICITY METER AND ITS BOX. P4: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR OF INSPECTION PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 17/11/2000. P5: COPY OF THE PENAL BILL DTD. 23/11/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO CONSUMER NO.4642. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1/12/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF BILL DTD. 15/12/2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- O.P.No.34224 OF 2000 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this Original Petition is against Exts.P5 and P6. 2. Petitioner is a company, engaged in the manufacture of Glucose and allied products. It was availing of supply of electrical energy from respondents with Consumer NO.4642. 3. It is stated that on 17.11.2000, the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the premises of the petitioner. Ext.P4 is the mahazar where they stated that one of the phases of the meter was not working. They have also listed out the electrical equipments that were found in the premises. Although, the total connected load as quantified at the time of inspection is not seen mentioned in Ext.P5, the petitioner submits that, going by its quantification, O.P.No.34224/00 2 though the permissible connected load is 76 kw, the actual connected load was only 61 k.w. On this basis it is contended that even if what is stated in Ext.P4 mahazar is correct, still the connected load was well within the permissible limits. It is therefore stated that Ext.P5 penalty bill and the direction in Ext.P6 is irregular and illegal. On the other hand counsel for the Board, referring to the affidavit filed would submit that, on the estimate made by the Board, the actual connected load found in the premises on the date of inspection was 100 kw as against the permissible 76kw. It is stated that there was an unauthorized connected load of 24 kw and that Ext.P5 penalty bill was issued on that basis. It is also stated that, in the aforesaid reason, Ext.P6 was issued requiring the petitioner to regularize the unauthorized connected load. Thus while the petitioner contends that the connected load as found by the Anti Power Theft Squad on the date of inspection was well within the limits, Board would contend that it was in excess by 24 k.w. Therefore essentially, the dispute is one of quantification of the actual connected load found in O.P.No.34224/00 3 the premises at the time of inspection and that is required to done by the respondents themselves with notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows. I. The 3rd respondent who has issued Exts.P5 and P6, shall quantify the actual connected load in the premises of the petitioner on the date of inspection with notice to the petitioner and with reference to Ext.P4 mahazar. ii. It is directed that on such quantification, if any excess unauthorized connected load is found, it will be open to the respondent to levy the penalty or other charges on the petitioner as is permissible in terms of the Regulations. Petitioner will also be given an opportunity to regularize the same. iii. It is directed that this exercise shall be completed by the 3rd respondent within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 which have been stayed by this court by order dated 16.1.2001 will remain in force and the amount remitted by the petitioner pursuant to O.P.No.34224/00 4 the said order will be appropriated depending upon the final orders to be passed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ O.P.No.34224/00 5 ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- O.P.No.34224 OF 2000 ------------------------ JUDGMENT Dated 26.5.2009