IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 6504 of 2005(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. POTTAKATTU RUBBERS PVT LTD. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KALAMASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. K.K.M.SHERIFF, ADV. P.M. KUNJUMOIDEENKUTTY, ADV. SRI. LAL.K.JOSEPH, ADV. SRI. ZIYAD RAHMAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYTHYUDHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, (APTS), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALAMASSERRY. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (APTS), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.6504/2005-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DTD. 12/08/2004. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE INOVICE DTD. 17/08/2004 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.86,16,776/-. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/08/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 25/09/2004. EXT.P.4; COPY OF THE ORDER NO. APTS/BV/2358/04/EKM/183 DTD. 09/02/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 14/02/2005. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 14/02/2005. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.6504 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge is on Ext.P4 appellate order and Ext.P5 invoice. It is not in dispute that the alleged unauthorised use of electricity is availed after the introduction of the new Act. Therefore, the penalty can be only at 1½ times and not three times. There is also a dispute regarding the period. Be that as it may, in any case the matter requires fresh consideration. Therefore, Exts.P4 and P5 are quashed. There will be a direction to the appellate authority to pass fresh orders in the matter with notice to the petitioner and adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.6504 of 2005 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 11th July, 2008