IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19925 of 2005(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BINANI ZINC LIMITED, BINANIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GEORGE THOMAS, DIRECTOR. BY SHRI S. GANESH, SENIOR COUNSEL. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.MATHEWS K.. UTHUPPACHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER B DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE, P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DY. CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C).NO.19925 OF 2005 V 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SOUTH, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALAMASSERY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN. BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 TO 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2009, THE COURT 21/12/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.19925 OF 2005 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.03/93-94 DATED 22.11.1993 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR NO.B4-25177/93/C E 1 DATED 9.12.1993 TO PETITIONER REGARDING INSTALLATION OF 20 MVA TRANSFORMERS. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM CHIEF ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION) TO DIRECTOR, BINANI ZINC NO.COM.1/BINANI ZINC/EHT/1578 DT. 27.1.1994 REGARDING ALTERATION OF THE EXISTING 110 KV SWITCH YARD AND SUB STATION OF BINANI ZINC LTD. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-25177/93/CEI DATED 30.7.1994 REGARDING UPGRADATION OF 110 KV SWITCH GEAR AND SUBSTATION. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR BEARING NO.B3- 1673/2003/CEI DATED 4.7.2003 REGARDING INSTALLATION OF RECTIFIER PLANT. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM ACCOUNTS OFFICER ISSUING PENAL BILL DT. 31.5.2004 ALONG WITH THE PENAL BILL. EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN DP2 IN THE CASE OF MATA AMRITANANDAMAYI MATH DT. 12.8.2003. EXT.P8TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION DT. 27.5.2004 TO THE CHAIRMAN OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P9TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 10.6.2004 FROM PETITIONER TO ACCOUNTS OFFICER REGARDING EXHIBIT P6. EXT.P9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATD 10.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY. EXT.P9(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.6.2004 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P9(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION DT. 16.6.2004. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD DT. 22.6.2004 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES 1 AND III. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 23.7.2004 FROM ACCOUNTS OFFICER TO BINANI ZINC LTD. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 25.8.2004 IN W.P.(C).22400/2004. W.P.(C).NO.19925/05 V EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER ON 1.9.2004. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ON 19.10.2004. EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE FRAMED BY THE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION. EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DT. 15.1.2003. EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 10.9.1997. EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER DATED 16.6.2005. EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DT. 22.6.2005. EXT.P20(A) SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE BILLS RAISED FROM JUNE 2004 TO JUNE 2008 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P20(B) SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 4.12.1989 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P22(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1-1361/80/EIE/ DT. 22.1.82 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, COCHIN TO M/S. COMINCO BINANI ZINC LTD., EDAYAR AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B4-943/88/CEI. DATED 9.8.1988 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR (STATUTES), TRIVANDRUM TO M/S. COMINCO BINANI ZINC LIMITED, BINANIPURAM AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B4.35672/91/CEI DATED 18.3.1992 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR (STATUTES), TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(D) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1-1739/91/EIE/DT.5.6.1992 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO M/S. COMINCO BINANI ZINC LIMITED, BINANIPURAM AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(E) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1-6341/93/EIE/DT.28.3.1994 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO M/S. COMINCO BINANI ZINC LIMITED, BINANIPURAM AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(F) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1.7335/93/EIE DT. 5.4.1994 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(G)TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1-2565/94/EIE/20.9.1994 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. W.P.(C).NO.19925/05 V EXT.P22(H) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1-2565/94/EIE/DT.8.12.1994 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(I) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1.8291/95/EIE DT. 17.10.1995 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(J) TRUE COPY ORDER NO.31507/95/CEI DT. 30. 03.1996 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, GOVT. OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(K) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1/8711/94/EIE DATED 13.06.1996 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(L) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1.8711/94/EIE DATED 13.06.1996 ISSUED BY THE ELECT4RICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(M) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.T1.8992/96/EIE/DT. 24.1.1997 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P22(N) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B3-31507/95/CEI.DT.1.7.1997 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER AND COPY TO OTHERS. EXT.P23 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF STAY DATED 7.7.2005 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.19925/05. EXT.P24 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4.4.2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.11492/2008. EXT.P24(A) TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.4.2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.12085/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P24(B) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2006 IN O.P.NO.17511/1998 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P25 TRUE COPY OF DISCONNECTION NOTICE DATED 19.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P26 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 27.6.2008 TO THE KSEB. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 19925 of 2005 V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st December, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, inter alia, challenges Exts.P6, P9(a), P12, P19, P20 and P20(a) series in so far as they levy penalty for alleged unauthorised load and seeks a declaration that the imposition of penalty on the basis of the installation of new Rectifier in April, 2003 is illegal. 2. Petitioner is an Extra High Tension Consumer. Ext.P1 is the agreement dated 22.11.1993 between the petitioner and the Board. The contract demand is 18000 KVA. Supply is to be made on 110000 Volts. Petitioner manufactures Zinc Metal and other by-products. Ext.P1 agreement was executed in the context of enhancement of power allocation. One of the equipments in the factory is a Rectifier- Transformer unit. It is the case of the petitioner that till 2003 there were two Rectifier units. It is stated that Rectifier-Transformer Unit is not a power consuming unit, but a power transmitting equipment. The function of the Rectifier, it is stated, is to step down the voltage from 11 KV to 120 V and also to convert the alternating current into direct current. It was decided, it is stated, on the opinion of its Engineers that another Rectifier unit may be necessary so that the two existing units may work on their maximum capacity. Thus the petitioner installed one WPC.No.19925/05 V 2 40 KA x 120 V high efficiency thyrister rectifier unit along with the existing rectifier units, the capacity of which is 4800 KW. It is stated that thus there are three rectifier units, but the power consumed by the three would remain the same. Acting under Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules the scheme for installation of new rectifier and connected equipment was submitted before the Chief Electrical Inspector. It is stated that after approval of the same, the equipment was installed and it was preceded by the requisite sanction from the Chief Electrical Inspectorate under Rule 63(2). Ext.P5 is the sanction. Ext.P6 is the communication dated 31.5.2004 accompanied by penal bill. This is on the basis of an inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 15.5.2004. Ext.P6 contains a demand for Rs.1,65,57,550.48 and purports to be under Clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P6 was not preceded by any notice or hearing. Petitioner submitted Ext.P9 purporting to request that Ext.P6 be withdrawn. Ext.P9(a) is a notice by which the Deputy Chief Engineer, Transmission Circle, Kalamassery issued notice to the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorised load. Petitioner submitted Exts.P9(b) and P9(c) replies. Petitioner moved Ext.P10 before the Regulatory Commission. It also filed a representation before the Chairman. However Ext.P12 came to be issued, which is WPC.No.19925/05 V 3 purportedly issued under Section 24 of the Electricity Act read with Section 32(C) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Thereafter pursuant to Ext.P13 judgment rendered by this court, petitioner preferred Ext.P14 appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer. Pending appeal, petitioner filed Ext.P15 representation requesting the Executive Engineer to take note of the installation of 4800 KW rectifier and its auxiliaries. Ext.P16 is the Supply Code of 2005. Ext.P17 is the amendment to Clause 42(b) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. By Ext.P19, the Deputy Chief Engineer confirmed the finding that there was unauthorised additional load of 4800 KW (5647 KVA) and that it has to be penalised at 1.5 times the fixed charges for a period of six months prior to the date of inspection. Following the same, Ext.P20 bill for Rs.3,73,21,433/- came to be issued. Subsequently petitioner has also produced Ext.P20(a) series bills received from June, 2004 till June, 2008. 3. I heard Sri.S.Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board. 4. Contentions of the Petitioner: (1) Regulation 42(d) is penal and it has to be strictly and narrowly construed. The benefit of doubt should go to the petitioner. WPC.No.19925/05 V 4 (2) Petitioner is an EHT consumer. It has a contract demand of 18,000 KVA. Petitioner is penalised under Ext.P6 with reference to the powers under Regulation 42(d). Even after the installation of the Rectifier in question, there is no increase in the contract demand, which is 18,000 KVA. There is no dispute regarding this aspect, it is pointed out. If that be so, it is contended that the petitioner cannot be penalized under Regulation 42(d). It is pointed out that there is no dispute that the other limb of the opening part of Regulation 42(d) is inapplicable to the petitioner. (3) It is pointed out that though there is an amendment to Regulation 42(d) on 18.9.2002, and the amendment clothes the authority with power to levy penalty at two times the unauthorised additional load, in this case it is inapplicable for the reason that in view of the sanction given by the Electrical Inspector, and having regard to the terms of Regulation 11, the additional load cannot be treated as unauthorised. (4) It is contended that by the amendment effected on 18.9.2002 even though the regulation contained definition of the word 'connected load', what is referred to is unauthorised additional load and not unauthorised connected load. He would therefore point out that having regard to the fact that petitioner had not exceeded the contract load as provided in Regulation 42(d) as it stood, it cannot be treated as an WPC.No.19925/05 V 5 unauthorised additional load and hence petitioner cannot be penalised. A perusal of Clause 14(b) of Ext.P1 agreement would also reinforce the petitioner's contention that any alteration etc is not permitted only if it exceeds the contract load, which has not happened in this case, he contends. He further points out that if support is drawn from the second limb of the first part of Clause 14(a), namely, that the load causes detriment to the interests of the Board, it would be plainly impermissible as no such case is raised against the petitioner either in the original order or even in the appellate order. An argument cannot be raised, which is not even supported by the affidavits filed in the case. It is further contended that the petitioner acted in a bonafide manner. In this context reference is made to Ext.P5 sanction obtained from the Electrical Inspector and the fact that in the past nearly 20 years, the petitioner had made several installations on the strength of the sanction obtained from the Electrical Inspector. It is the petitioner's bonafide impression, it is contended, that being a EHT consumer, all that it had to comply with was to get the sanction of the Electrical Inspector for connecting the equipment to the petitioner's system. No objection was raised in the past to the petitioner's installations based on sanction from the Electrical Inspector, it is contended. Hence for the first time that on the basis of the inspection in question petitioner is being visited with penalty. Being a WPC.No.19925/05 V 6 penalty, it is contended that, this aspect of bonafides is highly relevant. It is also contended that the petitioner had never paid the service connection charges, as contended, in the past. It is also stated that the demands raised in Ext.P20(a) series for the period from June, 2004 to June, 2008 are illegal. Regulation 42(d), it is contended, permits levy of penalty only for a period of six months and what is more, petitioner had made Ext.P15 application seeking regularisation of the connection and it is not open to visit the petitioner with continuous levy of penalty, despite the petitioner seeking regularisation. 5. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that in the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 connected load has been defined in the case of EHT consumers with reference to the contract load as it is stated that in the case of EHT consumers, the contract load will be the connected load. He would further contend that if reference is made to the explanation to Section 126(5) Clause (b) is called into play, the petitioner having obtained sanction from the Electrical Inspector, there is no unauthorised use and in view of the Division Bench judgment in Najeeb's case petitioner cannot be penalized. 6. Contentions of the respondents: Petitioner is a consumer as defined in Regulation 1(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Connected load is defined in WPC.No.19925/05 V 7 Regulation 1(n). It is therefore pointed out that upon installation of the rectifier in question, undoubtedly there is an increase in the connected load of the petitioner. Regulation 11 provides only that in the case of EHT consumer for connecting an additional requirement, sanction from the Electrical Inspector has to be produced. This does not mean, it is contended, that the petitioner is freed from the obligation contained in Regulation 24. Learned counsel for the Board invited my attention to Form 3, which provides for the consumer's installation completion report and the test report and submitted that upon such a report being given, the officer has to verify it and it is thereafter alone it can be connected. Otherwise it would be unauthorised additional load, it is contended. He would point out that the Board has to supply electrical energy and the quantum of energy to be supplied may increase upon additional load being created. In this case, it is pointed out that the additional load is very huge as it is 4800 KW. He would submit that the Board, which is a licensee and which is to ensure the supply is entitled to safeguard its interests, which can be predicated properly only upon even EHT consumer following the procedure contemplated in Regulation 13 read with the approvals contemplated under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. He further contends that the interpretation placed by the petitioner on Regulation 42(d) is not correct. Regulation 42(d) WPC.No.19925/05 V 8 provides inter alia that misuse of energy will be penalised. He would submit that misuse of energy is not to be confined to the two cases which are specifically mentioned in Regulation 42(d). He referred to Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Regulation 42. He contended that in this case, the case of the petitioner could be treated as a misuse of supply under Regulation 42(c). He would submit that the procedure contemplated under Rule 11 (a) read with Rule 63 of Electricity Rules must be treated as an extra burden to ensure that in the case of EHT consumers the requirements under the Electricity Rules are observed and sanction is obtained from the Electrical Inspector. But this does not mean, it is contended, that the petitioner's obligation to the Board is undermined. He also seeks to draw support from Clause 14(b) of Ext. P1 agreement. He further contends that with the amendment made on 18.9.2002 in Regulation 42(d), the matter is put beyond the pale of doubt. He submits that the unauthorised additional load referred to in the instrument dated 18.9.2002 can only be unauthorised connected load. He also referred to Regulations 33 and 37. He contended that Rectifier is a power consuming device. In this connection he referred to page 23 of the judgment in O.P.9565 of 1996 filed by the writ petitioner, wherein, in the course of the statement made by the Electrical Inspector, it is stated that rectifier is the most important part of the plant and it consumes the major share of electricity. He WPC.No.19925/05 V 9 pointed out that undoubtedly with the installation of the rectifier there is a substantial increase in the load. With respect to Section 126, it is pointed out that in the explanation clause (b) the word 'authority' is defined in the Act and it will not include the Electrical Inspector. He submitted that it may not suffice under the Regulations to merely make an application as was made vide Ext.P15. It must be followed up by setting the proper report made as in Form 3 and verified on inspection by the officer and then alone would the petitioner be freed from the obligation to pay penalty within the meaning of Regulation 42(d) as it stood amended by notification issued on 18.9.2002. He submitted that the penalty, though called a penalty, cannot be characterised as penal as having penal implications as understood in law. He would further contend that in fact under Section 126 penalty has to be imposed at a rate equal to one and half times of the tariff. But in this case penalty is levied at one and a half times of the fixed charges and that too it is only limited for a period of six months. He would submit that there cannot be any estoppel against the exercise of power under the Regulation on the score that on earlier occasions a particular practice was countenanced, namely, of the petitioner approaching the Electrical Inspector and adding to the load without following the procedure under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. He would submit that the load added is a WPC.No.19925/05 V 10 very substantial one and petitioner cannot be heard to say that they need not follow the law. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is no reference to Regulation 42(c) in the orders. He further contended that this is a fit case where the principle of contemporanea expositio may be invoked as the stand of the Board approving sanction of the Electrical Inspector as sufficing spoke eloquently on the subject. He would submit that Ext.P5 specifically provided for energisation. No condition was incorporated therein that the petitioner must get sanction from the Board. He also pointed out that a perusal of Regulation 24 would make it clear that it cannot be made applicable to an EHT consumer like the petitioner. He further contended that having regard to the fact that specific provisions will prevail over the general, if sanction is obtained by an EHT unit from the Electrical Inspector, the case would not be covered by Regulation 24. 8. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions. Regulations made under Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and other enabling provisions provide the definition of the following words,. They are extracted hereunder: WPC.No.19925/05 V 11 “1.(d) “Consumer” means the owner or occupier of the premises which are for the time being connected for supply of Electrical Energy with the Board's power system and in whose name the installation stands registered.” (n) “Connected load” means the sum total of the installed capacities of all the energy consuming devices on the consumer's premises connected to the system which can be operated simultaneously. (p) “Contracted load/Contract demand” means the maximum KVA/KW for supply of which the Board undertakes to provide a facility from time to time. (x)”High Tension/Extra High Tension Consumers” means all such consumers who obtain supply from the Board at High Voltage of Extra High Voltage as the case may be.” Regulation 3 provides as follows: “3. Application for supply of energy Prospective consumers shall furnish the details as per the Application for Supply of Electricity in Form I annexed, obtainable from the Assistant Engineer/Asst. Executive Engineer's Office.” Regulation 5 provides for power allocation. Regulation 6 provides for permission for wiring and it reads as follows: “6. Permission for wiring If the application is from an area where Board's distribution mains already exist and service can be effected by constructing service line alone, seven clear day's notice shall be given by the Asst. Engineer to the applicant for WPC.No.19925/05 V 12 supply or to the contractor or representative acting in his behalf for purpose of inspecting the premises and investigating the feasibility of power supply. If service can be effected by extending service line alone, the consumer will be given a written permission to start the wiring (Form 2(b) Annexed).” Regulation 11 is crucial, and it reads as follows: “11. Approval of Consumer's Installation (a) Before any wiring or apparatus (in the case of low tension consumers) and transformers, switchgear and other electrical equipment (in the case of H.T Consumers) is connected to the system, the same shall be subjected to the inspection and approval of the Board's engineer and no connection will be made without his approval. Before any wiring or apparatus (in the case of H.T. And E.H.T. Consumers) is connected to the Board's supply, approval in writing of the Electrical Inspector should be produced under Rule 63 of I.E Rules 1956. (b) Before any wiring or apparatus in case of High rise buildings, X-ray Units and Neon signs is connected to the Board's supply, it may be verified that the required notice under “I.E.Rules 1956” has been given by the owner of the installation to the Electrical Inspector. The connection shall not be given in case the Electrical Inspector has prohibited the connection by written communication addressed to the Board's Engineer.” WPC.No.19925/05 V 13 Regulation 24 reads as follows: “24.Extensions, Alterations & Renovation of Installations Should the consumer, at any time after the supply of energy has been commenced, desire to increase the number or wattage or capacity of lights, fans or motors etc., on his premises on a temporary or permanent basis or in any way alter the position of his wiring therein, notice thereof must be sent by the consumer in writing to the Board whose representative will call and inspect the alteration and, if necessary change meters and fuses and alter the service line. For this purpose if a single phase service line is to be converted to three phase or change of size of conductor to meet increased maximum demand is necessitated,