IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 15670 of 1999(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.P.ANTONY, PROPRIETOR, NAMBIATTUKUDY MODERN RICE MILL, KOOVAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KURUPPUMPADY. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01 / 02/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15670/1999 ORDER ON CMP. NO. 15670/2000 IN CMP. NO.25470/1999 IN OP. 15670/1999 DISMISSED 01.02.2008 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PENALTY BILL DT. 28.3.99. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE BILL DT. 15.3.99. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE BILL DT. 7.6.99. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE RECENT ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 2.2.99. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.15670 OF 1999-M -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the proprietor of a rice mill. The authorised connected load in the petitioner's rice mill was initially 61 KW. It was later raised to 84 KW. For the reason that there was unauthorised additional connected load to the tune of 43 KW, Ext.P1 bill dated 28.3.1999 was issued levying penal charges on the unauthorised connected load and also on the actual energy consumed. By Ext.P1, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,231/=. The petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.30,000/= towards the said bill and raised his objections. Thereupon Ext.P3 revised bill was issued limiting the claim to Rs.1,00,623/=. In Ext.P3 bill also penalty was levied on the unauthorsed connected load and also on the actual energy consumed. Since Ext.P1 bill was revised by Ext.P3, the former does not survive. In Ext.P2 bill dated 15.3.1999 also, penal charges were imposed on the unauthorised connected load and on the energy consumed. 2. In this original petition the petitioner attacks the levy of penal O.P.No.15670/1999 . 2 charges on the ground that in terms of Regulation 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy issued by the Board under Section 71(j) of the Electricity Supply Act, the Board can levy penal charges only on the unauthorised connected load but not on the energy consumed. 3. I have heard Sri. Firoz K.Robin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the issue raised in this original petition is covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.1231/2003 and also the decision of this Court in J.D.T. Islam Orphanage Committee v. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B (2007 (3) KLT 388). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that aforementioned decisions do not govern the case on hand. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1231/2003 held that levy of penalty under Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy has to be limited to the fixed charge portion only since the quantity O.P.No.15670/1999 . 3 of electricity consumed is measured through a meter and charges levied as per the tariff in force. A similar view has been taken in the decision reported in (2007 (3) KLT 388) and in O.P.Nos.1268/2003 and 35940/2001. 5. In the instant case also the petitioner does not dispute the entitlement of the Board to levy penalty on the fixed charge portion. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the actual energy consumed in his premises has been correctly metered and charges have been paid for the same in accordance with the tariff in force. The respondents have not chosen to file a counter affidavit disputing the averment in the original petition that the meter installed in the petitioner's premises was not faulty and that it was recording the energy consumed, correctly 6. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court referred to above, I hold that levy of penalty on the energy consumed by the petitioner is bad in law and it is liable to be quashed. However it is clarified that the Board can levy penalty on the fixed charge portion for the unauthorised connected load. I therefore, quash Exts.P2 and P3 and direct the respondents to O.P.No.15670/1999 . 4 issue a revised bill levying penalty only on the fixed charges for unauthorised extension of the connected load. The Board will give credit to the payments if any made by the petitioner towards Exts.P1 to P3. The original petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl O.P.No.15670/1999 . 5 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.15670 OF 1999-M JUDGMENT 1st February, 2008.