IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 19395 of 2005(H) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : - ----------------------- BOBY M.JACOB, SARAS SPICES, VILANGU, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS : - -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD (A.P.T.S), ERNAKULAM, POWER HOUSE, ALWAYE-683 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC,K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19395 of 2005(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT P2 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT P2 (a) : COPY OF BILL DATED 08.06.2005 FOR Rs. 23,404/- ISSUED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT. EXT P2 (b) : COPY OF BILL DATED 08.06.2005 FOR Rs. 5,813 / - ISSUED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT. EXT P3 : COPY OF THE JEDGMENT DATED 06.02.2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP No. 6350 / 1998. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- B.P.RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.19395 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB. 2. The main prayers in this writ petition are as follows: i) call for the records leading to Ext.P1, P2(a) and P2(b) and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the same; ii) declare that the petitioner is not liable to be penalised under Section 42(b) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy towards proportionate current charge on the ground of unauthorized additional load especially when the actual consumption of current charges are properly metered and paid by the petitioner; 3. Petitioner was found to be using 10KW unauthorised load at the time of APTS inspection. Petitioner challenged the same before the second respondent. The second respondent, vide Ext.P1, held that the petitioner is liable to pay penal charges as per Regulation 42(d) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy for the unauthorised load of 10KW. Exts.P2(a) and P(2)(b) bills are the penal bills issued pursuant to Ext.P1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount covered by Ext.P2(a) and P2(b). Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in a similar case wherein the division bench has remitted the matter to the Secretary, KSEB for reconsideration. In the case on hand, I do not find it necessary to send back the matter to the Board for reconsideration. W.P.(C)No.19395 OF 2005 :: 2 :: 5. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is high and excessive. Therefore, I reduce the same to twice the fixed and energy charges for a period of six months. Since the petitioner has paid the entire amount on protest, the excess amount be adjusted towards future bills of the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of. B.P.RAY, JUDGE jes