IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 3679 of 2007(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHINY BOBY, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.BOBY, OOROTH HOUSE, P.P.ROAD, PATHIPALAM, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI-POWER THEFT SQUAD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANTI-POWER THEFT SQUAD, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3679/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE BILL DATED 01/02/2006 IN RESPECT OF CONSUMER NO.6816. P2 : COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR OF R3. P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.3845/06 DATED 08/02/06. P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO.APTS/BV/249/06/EKM/785 DATED 23/12/06 OF R2. P5 : COPY OF REVISED BILL DATED 15/01/07. P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16/02/06 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R4. P7 : COPY OF REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER TO R4 DATED 16/02/06. P8 : COPY OF INTERIM RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 14/02/06. P9 : COPY OF BILL DATED 25/05/09 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P10 : COPY OF THE BILL DATED 23/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3679 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy supplied by the respondent Board. 2. The supply is made to a building of which, the ground and first floors are used for commercial purposes, and the second and third floors are used for residential purposes. It is stated that in the portion used for commercial purposes, the petitioner is running a cement distribution agency. 3. The petitioner submits that for meeting the requirements of the residential portion of the building, supply was being availed of under LT 1A tariff with consumer number 6817. It is also stated that to meet the construction requirements, a temporary connection under LT VII A tariff, with consumer No.6266 was availed of. 4. It is stated that while so, on 31/01/2006, the 3rd respondent conducted inspection on the premises of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared, where it is stated that the WP(C) No.3679/2007 -2- requirements of the ground and first floors were being met from consumer No.6817 under LT 1A tariff. Based on the mahazar, Ext.P1 demand was raised on the petitioner levying LT VII A tariff and ordering payment of a sum of Rs.1,64,409/-. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said demand by depositing 1/3rd of the amount demanded. By Ext.P4 order, the 3rd respondent, the appellate authority, partly allowed the appeal and restricted penalisation for the period from 01/12/2005 to 31/01/2006. It is also stated that the penalty will be continued to be levied until the petitioner disconnects the unauthorised extension or avails of a new connection. 6. The petitioner submits that subsequently, with effect from 21/04/2006, a new connection under LT VIIA tariff with consumer No.7696 has been given to the ground and first floors of the building. It is stated that as mentioned in Ext.P4 appellate order, with the availing of new connection effective from 21/04/2006, the continued levy at LT VII A tariff ought to have been discontinued. However, the petitioner continued to be levied penalty. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed WP(C) No.3679/2007 -3- challenging Exts.P4 & P5 and also the continued levy of penalty. 7. In so far as Ext.P4 is concerned, a reading of Ext.P2 mahazar shows that there was unauthorised diversion of energy. If that be so, on the aforesaid factual findings, and in the absence of any material to conclude the same to be perverse, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. 8. However, having regard to the continued levy of penalty on the petitioner is concerned, if as stated by the petitioner, the requirements of the ground and first floors of the building are completely met from consumer number 7696, from 21/04/2006, there is no reason to levy LT VII A tariff on consumer No.6817, consequent on the inspection that was held. Therefore, necessarily, it is for the 4th respondent, the Assistant Engineer, to inspect the premises and verify as to whether the requirements of the commercial portion of the building are met from Consumer No.7696 to discontinue levy of commercial tariff on consumer No.6817. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is getting supply under LT VII A tariff in consumer No.6266, which according to the petitioner is also catering to the requirements of the WP(C) No.3679/2007 -4- commercial portion of the building. The 4th respondent shall also verify this matter and ascertain as to whether the requirements of the commercial portion is met from this consumer number also. It is directed that if he is satisfied that the commercial requirements are met from the aforesaid two consumer numbers, necessarily, as a consequence thereof, supply to consumer No.6817 has to be restored under LT 1A tariff. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that such reworking and restoration of benefit should be continued from 21/04/2006. I am not inclined to pass such an order for the reason that even if verification as directed is undertaken, it is practically impossible to assess the situation as it prevailed in 2006. Therefore, I am not inclined to direct that the benefit should be given with retrospective effect. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg