IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33851 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MERRY LAND FROZEN CREAMS PVT.LTD., `BETHAL TANCEE', XIV/735/A/1, THELLAKOM P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ETTUMANOOR-686 631. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, ETTUMANOOR. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. Electricity connection was provided to the petitioner's industrial unit in the year 2005 with a connected load of 18 KW. Shortly after the electricity connection was provided, the petitioner applied for additional connected load. The said request was pending for quite some time. While matters stood thus an inspection of the premises was conducted on 25.2.2009 by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Electricity Board. They prepared Ext.P7 site mahazar which disclosed that the petitioner was using energy in excess of the connected load by installing additional machinery. Ext.P8 provisional assessment order was thereupon passed calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the sum of Rs.2,54,848/- should not be demanded as electricity charges. The petitioner submitted his reply. In the meanwhile, on the application submitted by the petitioner for additional connected load he was informed that he should pay the cost of installation of one 100 W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010 -:2:- KVA transformer. By Ext.P14 order passed on 26.10.2010 the Assistant Executive Engineer confirmed the provisional assessment. He also directed the petitioner to regularise the unauthorised additional load in terms of paragraph 51(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. Ext.P14 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to avail the power supply as at present upto 31.12.2010. 2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had used energy in excess of the connected load without the sanction of the Board. The petitioner does not dispute the assessment of energy charges made by the respondent in Ext.P8 provisional order. The only request made by the petitioner before the Assistant Executive Engineer was that he should be given time upto 31.12.2010 to continue the existing arrangement and that as the industry is to be shifted to another place it would be uneconomical to pay for a transformer. By the impugned order the Assistant Executive Engineer granted the petitioner 15 days' time to regularise the unauthorised additional load in terms of W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010 -:3:- paragraph 51(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. In my opinion on the admitted facts the stand taken by the respondents cannot be said to be illegal. Under section 46 of the Act read with regulation 4 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Accounting) Regulations, 2005, framed by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission the petitioner is bound to meet the expenses for installing a transformer in order to give him additional power. Under regulation 51(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 Low Tension consumers who have exceeded the connected load are bound to take steps to regularise the unauthorised additional load failing which the Board is entitled to disconnect the supply. In such circumstances as the petitioner had only sought time till 31.12.2010 to shift to another premises and to permit him to continue to use the existing power supply till such time, the writ petition has become infructuous. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010 -:4:- observation that if the petitioner continues to use the existing power supply without regularising the additional connected load it will be open to the respondents to realise penal charges from the petitioner so long as he does not regularise the unauthorised load. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 8th February, 2011