IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27826 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.KRISHNAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. V.V.CHOYI, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KOOTTAPPUNNA, P.O. MAILATTY, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHERKALA, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. THE ASST.ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHERKALA, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 27826 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. For the reason that the petitioner used electricity unauthorisedly, penalty was imposed on him. He challenged the same in a suit and lost. His appeal and second appeal also were dismissed. He submits that Ext. P3 reviiew petition in respect thereof is pending. In the meanwhile, a demand notice directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 23,625/- with surcharge of Rs. 50,375/- has been served on the petitioner directing him to pay the same on or before 3-10-2009. He is challenging the same. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Board also. 3. As far as the penalty is concerned, three courts having concurrently found against the petitioner, I am not inclined to consider the validity of the penalty proceedings in this writ petition. The petitioner submits that the demand for surcharge is unreasonable. Surcharge is provided for in the statute itself. Since it is a statutory prescription, I do not think that this Court should interfere with the demand of surcharge. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the demand now made. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to pay off the amounts. I direct the respondents to grant the petitioner one month's time to pay the amount. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.