IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26958 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JOMY.K.K, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KURIAKOSE, KAIPARAMBATT HOUSE, ATHANI.P.O, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 585. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN, SMT.K.B.REKHA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOMBODINJA MAKKAL - PIN - 680 697. BY ADV. SMT. P.K.RADHIKA, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26958/2011 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DATED 19/01/2011 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 21/01/2011 FOR RS. 60,694/- ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10/03/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/05/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 28/09/2011 FOR RS. 58, 923/- RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 26958 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board led by Assistant Engineer on 19.1.2011. It was then noticed that the petitioner was using unauthorised additional load of 3 Kilo Watt for running a Duck hatchery. Ext.P2 provisional bill accompanied by Ext.P3 letter was thereupon issued by the Assistant Engineer. The petitioner filed objections. By Ext.P4 order passed on 10.3.2011, the Assistant Engineer confirmed the provisional assessment. The main contention raised by the petitioner before the Assistant Engineer was that the motor, heater and other equipment which are connected to the electrical systems are used only for a short period. The Assistant Engineer overruled the said contention and held that as the unauthorised connected load is admitted, the duration for which each equipment is used is not relevant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer. By Ext.P5 order passed on 31.5.2011, the Deputy Chief Engineer dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P2 and P5 and seeking a W.P.(C) No.26958/2011 2 direction to the respondents to inspect the premises of the petitioner to ascertain whether he has removed the unauthorised connected load. 2. I heard Sri.B.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.P.K.Radhika, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that the petitioner had installed machinery in excess of the permissible connected load. The only explanation offered by the petitioner was that the equipment thus connected was being used only for a short period of time. The original and the appellate authorities rightly rejected the said contention. The petitioner is liable to pay penal charges for unauthorised connected load and therefore the case set out by the petitioner that equipment which are connected to the electrical systems are used only for a short period or were not working continuously is not a relevant matter. The stand taken by the respondents in the impugned orders is, in my opinion, unassailable. The petitioner who had violated the terms and conditions of supply and used additional connected load unauthorisedly without the permission of the Board cannot in my opinion be heard to contend that he is not liable to pay penal charges. Ext.P5 order itself discloses W.P.(C) No.26958/2011 3 that initially the petitioner was running a Duck hatchery using the 3 HP motor registered in the name of Sri.Joseph.V.J., the previous land owner, who had obtained the connection for agricultural purposes and later on inspection, it was detected and the tariff was changed to LTVIIA. Thus, it is evident from the petitioner's own conduct that right from very inception, he has been unauthorisedly using energy for running the Duck hatchery. I, therefore, find no grounds to interfere with Exts.P2 and P5. The challenge to the said orders is, in my opinion, misconceived and without any merit. 3. The petitioner has a further contention that after the inspection was conducted on 19.1.2011, the equipment referred to in the mahazar have been removed and without conducting a fresh inspection, he has been called upon to pay penal charges for the period after January, 2011. The said aspect of the matter is not covered by the impugned orders. It is for the petitioner to either move the respondents to regularise the unauthorised additional load or to satisfy them that he has removed the machinery installed in the premises. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the respondents for regularising the unauthorised connected load. W.P.(C) No.26958/2011 4 After the writ petition was dismissed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for three months time to pay the balance amount due in terms of Ext.P2 bill. He further submitted that he has already paid 50% of the amount and having regard to the said fact, he may be granted three months time to pay the balance amount due. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board did not seriously oppose the said request. In such circumstances, I direct that the electricity supply to the petitioner's premises shall not be disconnected for a period of three months for non payment of the balance amount due as per Ext.P2 bill, so as to enable the petitioner to pay the balance amount due either in lump or in three equal monthly instalments. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26958 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 12th October, 2011 --------------------------------------