IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 26126 of 2003(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.ABDUL SAKEER, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTAMASSERY, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PERUMBAVOOR (DEFINCT-ASST.EXE.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, VAZHAKULAM) 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB,ELECTRICAL SECTION, VAZHAKULAM, MUDICKAL P.O. BY SC SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1SERIES TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE FOR THE MONTHS OF 9 AND 11 OF 2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR ISSUED BY THE OFFICER UNDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2002 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY BILL DATED 24.1.2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.2.2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.1.2003 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.1.2003 IN OP 1319 OF 2003 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2003 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 19.5.2003 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 26126 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order in appeal issued by the Executive Engineer of the KSEB partly confirming penal bill issued to the petitioner after inspection. Petitioner enjoyed LT industrial connection and the unit was closed in June, 2000. However, petitioner applied for retention of the installation probably to restart the industrial unit. Strangely it was noticed that line was not disconnected and power was available for the petitioner to misuse it. During inspection on 19.1.2002 it was noticed that petitioner took unauthorised connection from the line and allowed employees to use the power. After inspection penal bill was raised for Rs. 21,120/- and along with it fixed charges for six months. It is conceded that fixed charges will be payable by the petitioner for the first six months after disconnection in the normal course and for one year if line is retained at the request of the petitioner. In this case line is retained at the request of the petitioner and so much so fixed charges are payable by the petitioner 2 for one year from the date of disconnection. Standing counsel for KSEB submitted that line is dismantled later. 2. In the circumstances, there will be direction to respondents to limit the fixed charges for one year from the date of disconnection. So far as penal charges for alleged misuse of power is concerned, I feel both are at fault. After disconnection Board allowed the petitioner to retain supply in the line. In fact effective disconnection is done when the supply to the line is cut-off from the main line, which is not done in this case leading to misuse of power. Since there is lapse on the part of the Electricity Board in disconnecting the actual supply and since actual consumption is not recorded and since petitioner was taking supply through loop, I reduce the penal charges from Rs. 21120/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Fixed charges and Rs. 10,000/- will be paid by the petitioner with applicable rate of interest before 30th of July, 2009 failing which recovery will be effected. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3