IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 13694 of 1997(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- DR. K.G. ALEXANDER, M.D MANAGING PARTNER BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INDIRA GANDHI ROAD KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER VYDHYUTHA BHAVAN PATTAM, TRIVANDRUM 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD KSEB, VYTHUDTHA BHAVAN, PATTAM TRIVANDRUM 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.E.B., NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE BY ADV SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT NONE APPEARS FOR THE PETITIONER. THERE WAS ALSO NO REPRESENTATION WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING. DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. 28.7.2008 SD/- P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE ORDER ON C.M.P.NO: 24526/97 IN O.P.NO: 13694/97 DISMISSED: 28.7.2008 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE jj /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.13694 OF 1997 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a consumer of electricity with consumer No.5276. They were originally a Low Tension consumer. They wanted to change over to High Tension. They filed an application for the purpose, which was sanctioned on 18.4.1997. The installation was completed and completion report submitted on 26.7.1997. The Electrical Inspector gave permission on 9.6.1997 by Ext.P7 order. In the meantime, the electricity board officers conducted an inspection on 28.5.1997. Alleging that the petitioner had connected the High Tension installation, unauthorisedly, proceedings were initiated for recovery of penal charges on unauthorised additional load of 144 KW. Three times penalty was imposed on both the fixed charges as well as energy charges, that too for a period of 31 months. On the ground that the meter was not working properly, another amount of Rs.49,416.65/- was also demanded. Ext.P3 is the calculation O.P.No.13694/97 2 statement and Ext.P4 is the demand bill for the same. The petitioner is challenging the same. Although the petitioner challenges calculation of penalty for 31 months in view of the decision of this Court in George Joseph V. K.S.E.B [2008(4) KLT 610], the petitioner would be satisfied, if the demand for penalty on energy charges is deleted from Exts.P3 and P4. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board also. In so far as penalty on energy charges are concerned, it is covered by my decision in George Joseph's case (supra). That being so, the demand for penalty on energy charges is not sustainable. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed to the extent of demanding penalty on energy charges. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue fresh bill to the petitioner confining to penalty on fixed charges and the amount in respect of short assessment for fault of meter. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the amount paid as a condition for interim order shall be adjusted against the amount to be paid by the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.13694/97 3