IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5872 of 2005(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ VICTORY GRANITE METALS, MANNAMPETTA,VARAKKARA P.O.,TRICHUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER E.M.SUNNY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD,KSEB VIGILANCE WING, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB DIVISION, CHALAKUDY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB,KODAKARA. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB,VARANTHARAPPILLY. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1TO4 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.5872/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 9.8.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE APPLICATION NO.1013/VGM/MPTA DT 9.8.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, TRICHUR. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 29.9.2000 PASSED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR (NO.B1-5232/2000/EIR). EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 7.1.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DT 27.1.2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.1201/KSEB/GVM/MPTA DT 15.2.2001 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RSPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT 13.3.01 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (NO.VIG.APTS/BV/5885/2000-01/EKM). EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19.10.01 SENT BY THE PTITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 21.11.2003 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 1.1.2005 PASSED BY THE 1ST RSPONDENT (NO.APTS/BV/5885/2000-01/EKM/7). EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DT 9.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT (NO.APTS/BV/5885/00-01/EKM) EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GBI/DLSIS/COMP./01/5095 DT 16.2.05 PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHALAKUDY. EXTS. OR R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/10/2001 ISSUED BY KSEB TO THE MANAGING PARTNER, VICTORY GRANITE METALS. //TRUE COPY// Rp P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5872 OF 2005 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the business of Stone Crusher Unit. 2. According to the petitioner, its connected load was 78 KW. By Ext.P1 application, they applied for additional allocation of power. While orders were awaited, they proceeded to install the additional machineries. It is stated that thereafter Ext.P2 application was made to the Electrical Inspector, who inspected the premises and granted sanction for energising the additional equipments as per Ext.P3 proceedings. Even thereafter also, orders on Ext.P1 was not passed and hence petitioner issued Ext.P4 to the 2nd respondent as a reminder to Ext.P1. Response was awaited and at that stage, on 11/1/2001, an inspection was conducted in their premises by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board. Ext.P5 report shows that they found equipments in the premises and that the connected load of the unit was 118 KW. On this basis, their consumption for the previous five months was reassessed and was issued Ext.P7 bill. WPC 5872/05 :2 : 3. Petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer. A reading of Ext.P8 appeal shows that it was their specific case that although the additional equipments were installed in the premises, none of these equipments were connected to the electrical system and that therefore his consumption never exceeded 78 KW. His appeal was rejected by Ext.P12 order, however with the modification that unauthorised additional load was only of 29 KW and that the period should be limited to 3.5 months as against 5 months adopted in Ext.P7 bill. Following Ext.P12, Ext.P13 bill was also issued. It is in these circumstances writ petition is filed. 4. As already stated, the specific case of the petitioner is that despite having installed additional equipments mentioned in Ext.P3 sanction and Ext.P5 report of the Anti Power Theft Squad, none of these equipments were connected to the electrical system resulting in the increase of the connected load. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the consumption was always within the permissible connected load of 78 KW. Although this specific plea has been raised in Ext.P8 appeal and also in Ext.P6 representation filed to the Executive Engineer, it is seen that the WPC 5872/05 :3 : Appellate Authority has proceeded on the assumption that the equipments were connected to the electrical system, without dealing with or rendering a specific finding on the dispute raised by the petitioner. In view of this, I am not in a position to sustain Ext.P12 and Ext.P12 will therefore stand set aside. 5. The 1st respondent, the Appellate Authority, is directed to reconsider Ext.P8 appeal of the petitioner, with notice to them and as expeditiously as possible. As a necessary consequence, Ext.P13 bill will also stand set aside. It is made clear that the remittance if any made by the petitioner following the interim orders passed in this writ petition will be appropriated depending upon the fresh orders to be passed as directed above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp