IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 2373 of 2008 ---------------------------- (Against the judgment in W.P.(c) No.17958 of 2003 dated 21.6.2007) APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- M.S.MOOSA, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 62 YEARS, MOOKKADA HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2373 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant is the Kerala State Electricity Board. The writ petition was filed seeking to set aside Ext.P2 electricity bill and Ext.P10 order. The complaint of the Board was that the petitioner had taken unauthorised extension for another purpose and he was sought to mulcted with penalty. The learned Single Judge took the view that since the energy consumed through the extension has already been measured in the meter at the main premises and charges have been levied also the only course open to the Board under Regulation 42 (d) is to levy the penalty in respect of the fixed charges or to disconnect the supply. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1553 of 2009. Therein this Court has accepted the case of the Board that the purport of the judgment in W.A.No.1231/2003 was that the amendment brought to the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy on W.A.No.2373 of 2008 -2- 18.9.2002 did not have retrospective effect and has remitted back for the case for consideration of question of penalty in the facts of each case. But, the learned counsel for the respondent would alert us to the pertinent fact in this case namely that the amendment was on 18.9.2002 while the inspection was in December, 2002, that is to say, the respondent will be entitled to be treated on the basis of the amended provision. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we see no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS