IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19304 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TATA TELE SERVICES LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE TOWER-1, 10TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARATHI, 124 CANNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI AND LOCAL OFFICE AT SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM KOCHI REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. BOBBY JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) KSEB ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19304 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is granted licence for providing mobile cellular telephone services in the State of Kerala. In their premises at Kuttipuram, an inspection was conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the respondent Board on 30/08/2008. Ext.P1 is the mahazar. In the mahazar, it was found that against the permissible connected load of 7 KW, the total connected load found in the place was 15 KW. 2. On the basis of Ext.P1 mahazar, Ext.P2 demand was issued requiring the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.4,62,755/-. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal and that was disposed of by Ext.P4 order. Based on Ext.P4, demand has been raised on the petitioner as per Ext.P5. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 and for consequential directions. 3. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that three contentions were raised, of which, the first one, namely the one relating to the Air Conditioning unit, has been found in favour of the petitioner. In so WP(C) No.19304/2009 -2- far as the claim that one of the rectifiers could not have been added to assess the connected load is concerned, that contention is dealt with and has been rejected by the appellate authority for the reason that the petitioner could connect the Rectifier to the system simultaneously. In so far as the contention raised by the petitioner that the demand could not have been made from October, 2006 onwards, that has been rejected relying on Section 126(5) of the Indian Electricity Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid two contentions before this Court also. In so far as the finding of the rectifier is concerned, in view of the factual conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority that the same was capable of being connected to the system simultaneously, I do not think that there is any error in the finding arrived at by the appellate authority. In so far as the levy of penalty for the period of 22 months, i.e. from October, 2006 is concerned, the learned counsel contends that Section 126(5) of the Act, originally provided that a consumer could be penalised only for a maximum period of six months and that the Section was amended only with effect from 15/06/2007. According to him, the Section as amended enabling levy of penalty for the WP(C) No.19304/2009 -3- whole period, can only with effect from 15/06/2007. On this basis, it is stated that the order penalising the petitioner from October, 2006 is illegal. 5. In this case, admittedly, the inspection was on 30/08/2008, which is much later to the amendment. If that be so, any inspection and penalty levied after 15/06/2007 can only be in terms of the amended Act. The amended Section provides that if the period during which unauthorised use of electricity cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to 12 months. Therefore, where the period of unauthorised use of electricity can be ascertained, the Act provides that penalty can be imposed for the whole period. In this case, relying on the fact that since October, 2006, there has been considerable increase in the energy used by the consumer, the Board has levied penalty. Going by the terms of the amendment effected from 15/06/2007, this action is perfectly legal. Therefore, the finding against the petitioner as contained in Ext.P4 cannot be faulted. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the amount within two weeks from today. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg