IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4383 of 2011(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V WIN POLYMERS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KANIYAMPAL, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN-680 503. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRCITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-690 001. BY ADV.SRI. P.P. THAJUDHEEN, SC FORKSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4383 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical charge. When the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board inspected the petitioner's business premises on 14.12.2010 it was noticed that there was unauthorised additional connected load of 43 kilowatts and that one phase of the CT metre was not recording the consumption of power supply. Thereupon, Ext.P2 provisional invoice was raised accompanied by Ext.P3 demand notice demanding payment of the sum of Rs.4,02,156/-. The petitioner filed his objections evidenced by Ext.P4. The first respondent who made the provisional assessment confirmed it and thereupon issued Ext.P8 demand notice demanding payment of the sum of Rs.4,02,156/-. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 provisional notice and Ext.P8 demand notice. The demand consists of fixed charges and energy charges for the additional connected load aggregating to Rs.1,21,586/- and the sum of Rs.2,06,414/- being the energy charges for the unrecorded portion of the energy consumed in the premises. Under regulation 37(4) of the Kerala WPC No.4383/2011 2 State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 the petitioner can move the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum challenging Ext.P8 in so far as it relates to levy of energy charges for the unrecorded portion of energy stated to have been consumed in the petitioner's premises. From the decision of the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum an appeal lies to the State Electricity Ombudsman. As regards the levy of fixed charges and energy charges for the unauthorised connected load, the petitioner can challenge the said demand in appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer in terms of section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The period of limitation prescribed for moving the Deputy Chief Engineer and the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum has not expired. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should canvass the correctness of Ext.P8 in other appropriate proceedings. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition leaving open the petitioner's contentions and reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8 in other appropriate proceedings. In the event of the petitioner challenging Ext.P8 in appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer in so far as it relates to the levy of fixed charges and energy charges for the unauthorised connected load, WPC No.4383/2011 3 the appellate authority shall not insist on payment of 50% of the entire amount demanded in Ext.P8 but shall only direct payment of 50% of the amount demanded as penalty for unauthorised connected load. In order to enable the petitioner to move the concerned authorities and seek appropriate interim orders, enforcement of the demand made in Ext.P8 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one week from today. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.4383/2011 4 WPC No.4383/2011 5