IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 OP.No. 19863 of 2001(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- COCHIN POLYMERS PROVATE LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR C.A. SHAJAHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. AJEED, CHOLLOMPAT HOUSE, METHANAM P.0., PANAIKULAM, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KALAMASSERY ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, ERNAKULAM. 3. ASST. ENGINEER, ELOOR ELECTRICAL SECTION, ERNAKULAM. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD HEADQUARTERS, K.S.E.B, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TOR4 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 19863/2001. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL BILL DT. 3-1-2001. EXT.P2 NOTICE DT 3-1-2001. EXT.P3 APPLICATION DT. 23-5-2000. EXT.P4 APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R4. EXT.P5 JUDGMENT IN O.P. 1061/2001 DT. 10-1-2001. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 13-6-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 19863 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Company engaged in the manufacture of synthetic Water Tanks. The manufacturing activity is carried on in two buildings. Petitioner is a consumer of electricity under LT IV tariff. On the ground that the petitioner used an unauthorised extension to one of the buildings from the electricity connection in the other, Ext. P1 bill was issued to the petitioner calculating penal charges under LT VIII tariff. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had earlier on 23-5-2000 filed an application for regularisation of the connection through the transformer installed for avoiding low voltage, which had not been considered and orders passed. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was enjoying electricity under LT IV tariff and therefore even if the petitioner is liable to pay penalty for unauthorised extension, that could only have been under LT IV tariff. Instead, penalty has been calculated under LT VIII tariff imposing penalty at that rate on the basis of connected load on daily basis. The petitioner's appeal against the bill was rejected by Ext. P6 order. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P6 order of the 4th respondent; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to forebear from disconnecting the electrical connection to Consumer No. 6809; iii. to declare that the electricity energy consumed by the petitioner company vide consumer No. 6809 is under LT IV category, and bills and additional bill, if any, are to be issued to the petitioner Company as per the rates and regulations applicable to LT VI consumers. iv. issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 not to give effect to Ext. P1 and Ext. P8. O.P. No. 19863/01 -: 2 :- v. to issue an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6, pending disposal of the above original petition.” 2. Although, the petitioner would contend that he is not liable to pay any penalty, for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if the benefit of the judgment of this Court in J.D.T. Islam Orphanage Committee v. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board and others, 2007(3) KHC 6, wherein a learned Judge of this Court has held that in the absence of any provision enabling the Board to levy energy charges, LT VIII tariff for unauthorised extension, billing at penal rates on the basis of the connect load on daily basis is impermissible, is granted to him. The learned Judge held that in such case, liability is only for penal rates at three times the fixed charges alone under LT VI Tariff for six months during the relevant period, which was the normal tariff applicable to the petitioner in that case. He submits that he may be given the benefits of that judgment leaving the other questions open to be agitated again, if necessary, in future proceedings. 3. I have heard the standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board also. The standing counsel does not dispute the fact that the issue involved in this original petition is covered by the above said decision. 4. I have gone thorough the said decision. I completely agree with the ratio of that decision. Accordingly, following that judgment, Exts. P1 and P6 orders are quashed. It is held that the petitioner is liable to pay penalty under Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy at three times the energy charges under LT IV tariff for six months during the relevant period. The respondents are directed to issue a revised bill accordingly. if the O.P. No. 19863/01 -: 3 :- petitioner has paid any amount, the same shall be adjusted against the bill to be so issued. If there is any excess amount to be refunded to the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted against his future bills. If any further amount is to be paid by the petitioner, the same can be demanded from the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ The words ‘energy charges’ occurring in the 4th sentence in paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 15.1.2010 are corrected as ‘fixed charges’ as per order dated 26.7.2013 in I.A. No. 9500/2013. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) [True copy] P.S to Judge.