IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 230 of 2009(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- NOUSAD S/O.KARIVALIL THUNDIL KHALID, KOTTECANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN (UDAYA SOUND, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM) BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINER, ELECTRICL SECTION CENTRAL, ENAKULAM 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHY BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. BY ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.230 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is involved in leasing out different electrical gadgets in connection with sound and light during festival season and for other similar purposes. On 23.1.2007, an inspection squad visited his premises and found that he has drawn an extension, which, according to the department, was treated as an unauthorised one. A provisional invoice was raised demanding payment of Rs.81,000/-. He filed objections stating, among other things, that a new equipment was purchased by him on 12.1.2007 and the so called extension was drawn only for the purpose of providing testing facility for that equipment. MCB, the newly purchased equipment, is used in connection with stage shows and other sound and lighting systems. Having regard to the fact that he had purchased that equipment only on 12.1.2007, he took the stand that the said inspection on 23.1.2007 could be reasonable only if it is taken that the unauthorised extension is only for hardly a fortnight. Not only WPC.230/09 Page numbers that, he also took the stand that the drawal of the temporary extension was only for testing purpose and not for enjoyment of electricity as suggested. But the concept of enjoyment for the purpose of the electricity laws is only that electricity is put to use for some purpose. Whatever that be, Ext.P4 order was issued by the assessing authority fixing the total recoverables at Rs.68,850/-. The petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ petition and he was relegated by this Court to the appellate authority on condition of payment of Rs.25,000/-. That amount was duly paid. Ext.P6 would show that the petitioner's appeal to the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act got a very reasonable and pragmatic consideration. I say this because the Deputy Chief Engineer adverted to and considered all facts and factors and has taken a view that the petitioner could be made liable only to the extent of the period of the festival seasons and it would not be appropriate to demand the entire amount covered by Ext.P4 order. Accordingly, the appellate authority slashed the total amount to be 6 x 50 x 1.5 x 120. That calculation for revision of the bill is, in my view, even factually reasonable. Therefore, there is no error of jurisdiction WPC.230/09 Page numbers or illegality warranting exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with Ext.P6 decision. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- and the balance outstandings is Rs.29,000/-, even going by Ext.P7, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P7 notice of demand will be treated as satisfied if the petitioner pays the entire amount of Rs.29,000/- covered thereby, by remitting it without any interest adding thereon, in three equal monthly instalments, payable on or before the 20th of every month commencing from January, 2009. However, if there is default in remitting any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment, in so far as it is in favour of the petitioner, will stand recalled automatically and the respondents will be at liberty to forthwith proceed with further action. If the above direction is complied with, there shall be no disconnection referable to Ext.P7. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.