IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14863 of 2004(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. ASHRAF, PROPRIETOR, TAJ WOOD INDUSTRIES, KAVADIKALAM, POST KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS) ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD (HQ) VIGILANCE WING, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOTTAKKAL. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOTTAKKAL. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF LICENCE ISSUED BY PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER DT.26.3.2003. P2: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION MADE BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DT.10.11.2001. P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3 DT.30.4.2002. P4: TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF R3 DT.28.7.2003. P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3 DT.30.7.2003. P6: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER DT.11.8.2003. P7: TRUE COPY OF BILL RECEIVED BY PETITIONER DT.11.8.2003. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R2 DT.12.8.2003. P9: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT TO PETITIONER BY R2 DT.21.8.2003. P10: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MADE BY PETITIONER R2 DT.4.9.2003. P11: TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY R2 TO PETITIONER DT.17.9.2003. P12: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.31687/03 DT.9.10.2003. P13: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR ENHANCED ALLOCATION OF POWER FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R4 DT.6.2.2004. P14: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM RECEIPT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 TO PETITIONER DT.7.2.2004. P15: TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R2 DISPOSING OF EXT.P10 APPEAL DT.19.4.2004. P16: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.3.5.2004. P17: TRUE COPY OF REVISED BILL DT.30.4.2004. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.14863 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for KSEB. The petitioner retains two consumer connections in the nearby premises, one is a saw mill and other is a furniture shop. When petitioner applied for additional load of an extent which requires transformer and execution of minimum guarantee agreement, KSEB instructed petitioner to comply with formalities, which petitioner declined. However, without waiting for any clearance petitioner took additional load from the saw mill to the area where furniture was being made. The inspection conducted on 23.7.2003 revealed the additional unauthorised load of 19.25 HP which is equivalent of 14 KW. A bill for unauthorised additional load was raised on the petitioner which is above Rs.5 lakhs. Then petitioner filed appeal against the same before the Deputy Chief Engineer, who vide Ext.P15 granted quantum relief and the liability was reduced to Rs.3,30,000/-. This W.P. is filed challenging the order in appeal and also for a direction to KSEB to grant additional load to the petitioner for continuing the industry. 2. Strangely neither the petitioner nor the respondents have stated 2 whether petitioner continued to use the unauthorised load later or dismantled the installation. In any case if petitioner wants additional load, petitioner is still free to apply for it. On complying with the formalities, additional load should be granted to the petitioner as he is running the industry. Therefore, there will be direction to the KSEB to consider petitioner's application for additional power allocation if petitioner is willing to execute minimum guarantee agreement, instal transformer etc., if required, in accordance with the norms. 3. So far as challenge against Ext.P15 order is concerned, I have gone through the same and I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings because penal rates charged are strictly in accordance with the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Admittedly, petitioner took unauthorised extension of power and utilised the same in the factory for making furniture. In fact, it is the finding that power to be charged at industrial tariff in the saw mill was diverted for lighting purpose, which is also reckoned while deciding the appeal. Consequently challenge against Ext.P15 is rejected. However, since the petitioner has remitted Rs.1.75 lakhs in two instalments and since stay was granted by this court and there is no theft of power by the petitioner, the interest payable will stand waived provided petitioner clears 3 the arrears before 30.9.2009. However, if petitioner does not clear the arrears by 30.9.2009, then respondents will be free to proceed for recovery of arrears along with interest. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms