IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 16008 of 2000(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KURIAN CHERIAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEVEA RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LT., MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-685 004. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOTTAYAM EAST, KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. THE EXE. ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PAKKIL POST, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 16008/2000. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT. 15-12-1999. EXT.P2 COMPLAINT DT. 31-1-2000. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 27-4-2000. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 16008 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 30th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's is an SSI unit consuming electricity. In the State, power cut was introduced in 1997. Therefore, for every industry, monthly quota of electricity was fixed. The consumption of energy in excess of the monthly quota was to be charged at double rates. In February, 1997, the petitioner's unit exceeded the monthly quota by 4883 units. The respondents did not charge for this excess consumption at double rates. For subsequent months also, there was excess energy consumption, which was charged at double rates. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext. P1 bill for an amount of Rs. 44,199/- as recoverable on account of short assessment of excess quota for the period from 3/1997 to 8/1997. Petitioner's appeal before the Executive Engineer did not meet with success, since, by Ext. P3, the same was rejected. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P 1 bill and P3 order. 2. According to the petitioner, the maximum the respondents could do was to charge the excess consumption of 4883 units at double rates, namely @ Rs. 2.70 per unit which would come to only Rs. 13,184/- and therefore the demand for Rs. 44,199/- is clearly unsustainable. 3. Counsel for the Electricity Board would contend that as per Board orders on the subject, in addition to charging the excess consumption at double rates those excess units consumed would also be deducted from the next month's monthly quota and the balance would be charged at double rates. The petitioner has been constantly consuming excess electricity for all those months in excess of monthly quota and it is after adjusting the excess consumption also against the subsequent month's allotted quota that Ext. P1 bill has been issued for the entire excess consumed at double rates. O.P No. 16008/2000 -: 2 :- 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Power cut is introduced not with the intention of recovering excess energy charges from the consumers. The primary object of imposing the power cut is to forcibly make consumers consume less energy in view of the precarious condition of production of electrical energy in the State. If charging of excess consumption at double rates alone is imposed, most industries would be happy to pay double rates and consume energy, as much as they can, since that would be more profitable to them than consuming less energy. Therefore, simply by charging excess consumption at double rates, power cut cannot be effectively implemented. That being so, the only way the consumers can be forced to consume electricity confining themselves to the quota allotted to them is to reduce the next month's allowed quota by the excess consumption for the previous month, which only has been done in this case. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/