IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 3807 of 2003(C) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- CITY SILKS, CITY TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, KOTTACKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUHAMMED KUTTY HAJEE, AGED 55, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED, C.P.HOUSE, VELLIMUKKU AMSOM, THIRURANGADY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOTTACKAL. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOTTACKAL. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 3807 of 2003(C) ORDER ON CMP NO.6707/2003 IN O.P. NO.3807/2003 DISMISSED 11/12/2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.3807/2003-C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the direction in Ext.P1, informing the petitioner that for giving an additional connected load he may have to remit certain amounts and provide a suitable space for installation of transformer, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner is conducting a textile shop having consumer No.1883. The connected load to the establishment is 35 KW. He submitted an application for additional load of 43 KW and reply was given as per Ext.P1 in that regard. 2. The petitioner submits that there is another transformer close to the establishment and by stepping-up the transformer, the additional load can be connected to the petitioner's premises. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that during the inspection of the premises on 15/09/2001, the Anti-Power Theft Squad, Regional Unit, Kozhikode, detected an unauthorised connected load of 41 KW and a bill for Rs.3,13,407/- was issued, which was remitted by the petitioner. It is thereafter, on 29/09/2001, an application was submitted to allocate an additional load of 43 KW. If the application is sanctioned, the total load of the establishment will be 78KW. Relying upon Clause 37(I) of O.P. No.3807/2003 -:2:- the Conditions of Supply of Electricity Energy, it is stated that if the load exceeds 50 KVA (40KW), the petitioner is liable to install a separate transformer and that alone was informed to him by Ext.P1. With regard to the alternate suggestion made by the petitioner, it is stated that the same is not possible as a separate three phase LT line has to be drawn from the transformer point upto the consumer's premises. In this case, the construction of a separate three phase line is not possible as the existing line as HT/LT is with duplicate feeder, i.e., the line is having one set of 11KV line and two sets of LT feeder and the construction of three phase line is not possible with the existing line. All the lines are along the road side of Kottakkal Town, and it is not possible to maintain the statutory ground clearance of the line. It is further pointed out that the existing 11 KV line is passing just in front of the petitioner's premises and it is possible to install a separate 100 KVA transformer at the premises of the petitioner, and if the petitioner is ready to remit OYEC charges, 11KV line to the petitioner's premises can be drawn either as OH line or by UG Cable. It is also pointed out that if separate transformer is installed for the establishment, they can have better voltage, and rate of interruption, a power failure due to line complaints will be less. O.P. No.3807/2003 -:3:- 4. Going by Clause 37(I) of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity Energy, it cannot be said that the communication, Ext.P1, issued by the respondents is faulty. They have only acted in accordance with the rules. The alternate suggestion made by the petitioner is also not found feasible. It is clear that they have examined that and found it not feasible to be executed. In that view of the matter, no direction can be granted in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. If the petitioner complies with the formalities for installation of a separate transformer, that will be considered by the respondents and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with the relevant provisions. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms O.P. No.3807/2003 -:4:- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.3807/2003-C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T 1 1 t h D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 8 .