IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 10037 of 2000(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHA JANARDHANAN, W/O.JANARDHANAN, MANNANKUDY HOUSE, KANNIMANGALAM, NEELESHWARAM P.O, (VIA.) KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B., PERUMBAVOOR. 3. ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KALADY. 4. ASST. ENGINEER, KSEB, MANJAPRA. ADV.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.10037/00. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE BILL FOR NOV.98. P2. COPY OF THE BILL FOR JULY, 99. P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. P4. COPY OF THE BILL FOR DEC.99. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.29.2.00 BY R2. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER BY R4. P7. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.25.2.2000 TO R3. P8. COPY OF THE BILL FOR FEB.2000. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.10037 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings initiated by the respondents for collection of penal charges for unauthorised load in excess of the sanctioned load connected by the petitioner to the electrical installation in her establishment. The petitioner's contention is that she has not used any unauthorised additional load. Further she would submit that she had filed application for regularisation of the unauthorised load, which has been replied by Ext.P6 stating that since the S.S.I. Registration is in the name of the petitioner's husband and the electrical installation is in the name of th petitioner, unless the registration is also transferred to her name, the petitioner's application cannot be considered. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 application for transferring the electrical installation also in the name of her husband. However, the same was not considered. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writs, order or direction setting aside Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P8. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction o.p.10037/00 2 compelling the respondents 3 and 4 to instal a correct meter to the Consumer No.3766 and send the meter now installed to the Chief Electrical Inspector for finding out whether it is fault; iii) direct the respondents to transfer the consumer No.3766 from the name of the petitioner to the name of the petitioner's husband name Shri.Janardhanan and enhance the electricity load in the said consumer No. if necessary. iv) direct the respondents not to impose penal charges on the fixed charge and electricity actually consumed by the petitioner. v) stay Ext.P8 electricity bill and direct the respondents not to collect penal charges on the electricity actually consumed by the petitioner in future bills pending disposal of the above O.P.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that there is some bad blood between the officers of the Board and the petitioner, which has resulted in a number of writ petitions as also a writ appeal. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was being harassed by the officers of the Electricity Board for no fault of hers. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent refuting the contentions of the petitioner. 4. From the facts of the case an inference to the effect that there is some bad blood between the officers of the Electricity Board and petitioner is not out of place. It is strange to note that in spite of the allegations regarding unauthorised load, no mahazar whatsoever has been prepared by the officers of the Electricity Board. Although the petitioner submitted application o.p.10037/00 3 for regularisation of the unauthorised load, instead of considering and passing orders thereon, the respondents continued to issue demands for penal charges. This, I do not think is proper on the part of the respondents. However, in so far as the petitioner has applied for regularisation of unauthorised load, the petitioner cannot now claim that there was no unauthorised load. That being so, the demands for penal charges in respect of the unauthorised load cannot be interfered with. However, that can only be upto the date of the application for regularisation in so far as the petitioner had in fact applied for regularisation of the unauthorised load, on which the officers of the Electricity Board had not taken appropriate action. Of course, in the counter affidavit the 3rd respondent has taken a contention that the petitioner has not complied with the procedure prescribed for regularisation of the unauthorised load. If that be so, nothing prevented the 3rd respondent from issuing a communication to the petitioner directing the petitioner to comply with the procedural formalities, which also had not been done in this case. It is also strange to note that in the counter affidavit the third respondent has taken a stand that the husband has to transfer all o.p.10037/00 4 his licenses etc. in favour of the petitioner than the petitioner transferring her rights in favour of her husband. I do not think that the respondents can insist for that. There is nothing wrong in the petitioner requesting for transfer of the electrical installation standing in her name in the name of her husband especially when the husband is the owner of the establishment. Further the respondents had no objection earlier when electricity connection was granted although the ownership and connection were in the name of the husband and wife separately. In the above circumstances, while confirming the demands for penal charges as per the impugned demands, I direct that the respondents are not entitled to recover any penal charges in respect of the unauthorised load after submission of the application for regularisation of the unauthorised load in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The 3rd respondent shall take all steps to regularise the unauthorised load and pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment . The 3rd respondent shall also intimate the petitioner as to what are all procedural formalities required for the purpose, which shall be complied with o.p.10037/00 5 by the petitioner. I make it clear that the respondents shall not in any way try to further harass the petitioner in the name of procedural formalities. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.10037/00 6 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ O.P.No.10037 of 2000-T ================ J U D G M E N T 16th October, 2008 o.p.10037/00 7