IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 28747 of 2005(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S. COCHIN SURFACTANTS PVT.LTD., PLOT NO.63, INDUSTRIAL AREA, EDAYAR, BINANIPURAM. P.O., REP.BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAJITHA BASHEER. BY ADVS. MR.KKM.SHERIFF, MR.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY, MR.LAL K.JOSEPH, MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SMT.ROOP REKHA D.KAMATH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTIRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTIRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ALUVA (WEST). R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC,KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 28908 OF 2005,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28747/2005 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE HIGH TENSION AGREEMENT DTD. 27/08/2003. P2: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DTD. 18/03/2005. P3: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 1/04/2005. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.HTB 28/3976/1863 DTD. 1/04/2005. P5: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.28/3976/FEB/2005 DTD. 07/03/2005. P5(A): COPY OF THE 28/3976/JAN/2005 DTD. 07/02/2005. P5(B): COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.28/3976/DEC/2004 DTD. 04/01/2004. P5(C): COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.28/3976/NOV/2004 DTD. 06/12/2004. P5(D): COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.28/3976/OCT/2004 DTD. 05/11/2004. P5(E): COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.28/3976/SEP/2004 DTD. 05/10/2004. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION T1-4151/04-EIE DTD. 20/07/2004. P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 21/07/2004. P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6/07/2005 IN WPC.NO.12657/2005. P9: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM APPEAL DTD. 18/07/2005. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/09/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.28747 & 28908 OF 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The issue raised in these writ petitions being common, these cases are heard together. For convenience, I shall refer to the facts and exhibits marked in WP(c). No.28908/05. 2. Petitioner in WP(c).No.28908/05 is a High Tension Consumer. Ext.P1 is an agreement entered with the Kerala State Electricity Board, in terms of which the contract demand of the petitioner is 300KVA. On 17.2.2005, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the petitioner's premises and Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared. In Ext.P2 it is stated that though the authorised connected load was 369 KVA, equipments having additional load of 156 KVA were found in the premises. Based on Ext.P2 mahazar, on the basis that there was an additional load of WP(c).Nos.28747/05 & anor. 2 156KVA, Ext.P3 bill was issued to the petitioner, demanding charges at twice the rate applicable for two months, applying the provisions of clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Ext.P7 appeal filed against Ext.P3 bill was rejected as per Ext.P8. It is challenging Exts.P3 and P8 that these writ petitions are filed. 3. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that, clause 42(d) of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy provides that, if the consumer exceeds the contracted load without prior permission of the Board, that will be deemed as a misuse of energy liable to be billed at the rate as indicated therein. It is stated that, in spite of the additions of the equipments as indicated in Ext.P2, the contract demand of the petitioner always remained well within 300 KVA. Therefore, as the contract demand never having exceeded the contract demand fixed in Ext.P1 agreement, petitioner is not liable to be penalized under clause 42(d). Counsel also made reference to clause 2(b)of the Conditions of Supply of WP(c).Nos.28747/05 & anor. 3 Electrical Energy in support of this contention. 4. Ext.P7 is the appeal memorandum and this ground is elaborately raised in ground-A therein. Further, a reading of Ext.P8, the appellate order shows that this contention has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. Since the appeal has been disposed of in the manner as mentioned above, I feel the matter needs to be reconsidered. 5. In so far as WP(c).No.28747/05 is concerned, petitioner therein is also a HT consumer placed in similar circumstance. In this case also the appellate order is Ext.P10. 6. Having regard to the above, Ext.P8 and P10 referred to above will stand set aside and the 2nd respondent the appellate authority shall consider the appeals which lead to the aforesaid orders with notice to the petitioner and in the light of the provisions contained in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy referred above. It is directed that orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the WP(c).Nos.28747/05 & anor. 4 judgment. In the meanwhile, the status quo ordered by this Court will continue. Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).Nos.28747/05 & anor. 5