IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1437 of 2008(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. KANJIRAPPILLY AMUSEMENT PARK AND HOTELS PVT.LTD., CHALAKUDY, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIMON K.FRANCIS. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), K.S.E.B., VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SECTION, IRINJALAKKUDA. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1437/2008-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 06/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE KSEB TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF NOV' 2004. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE INOVICE DTD. 04/02/2005 ISSUED BY THE KSEB TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF JAN `2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 04/03/2005 ISSUED BY THE KSEB TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF FEB `2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DTD. 10/05/2005 PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 13/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE KSEB TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 13/05/2005 ISSUED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P.5. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 27/05/2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.15885/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AE111/8-14/07-08/2305 2-11-2007, DTD. 09/2007 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. HTB-1/3760 DTD. 29/12/2007 ALONG REVISED BILL ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 1437 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner runs an amusement park where the petitioner consumes electricity. Based on Ext.P4 mahazar prepared in an inspection conducted on 10.05.2005 an additional bill Ext.P5 was issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board to the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner has unauthorizedly used additional load of 56 KW. The petitioner was served with Ext.P6 bill demanding a sum of Rs.1,95,300/-. Since that demand was without issuing a provisional order this court by judgment in W.P. (C) No. 15885/2005 directed the petitioner to file objections after depositing 1/3rd of the disputed amount with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the objections and pass fresh orders. Pursuant to the said judgment, Ext.P8 order has been passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, (Electrical Circle), Irinjalakuda whereby W.P.(C)No. 1437 of 2008 -2- according to the petitioner, the petitioner is labile to pay only an additional amount of Rs.22,575/- in addition to Rs.65,100/- paid by the petitioner in accordance with the directions in Ext.P7 judgment. The petitioner has now been issued with Ext.P9 revised bill purported to be in terms of Ext.P8 bill demanding a sum of Rs.1,20,225/-. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari and quash Ext.P9; ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to levy the electrical charges from the petitioner only in accordance with Ext.P8 appellate order; iii) Issue a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondent from realizing any amount on the basis of Ext.P9 in excess of amount shown in Ext.P6, till the disposal of this Writ Petition;” 2. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed by the Board, which is not in the file. But a reply affidavit filed by the petitioner is on record. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board is that the petitioner did not remove the unauthorised additional load and therefore until the unauthorised load is removed W.P.(C)No. 1437 of 2008 -3- the Board is entitled to recover penalty for the unauthorised additional load which is also included in Ext.P9. Therefore, according to the standing counsel Ext.P9 is just and proper. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The contention now raised by the Board was not taken up in the earlier writ petition. If the petitioner has paid the original amount that would have been the end of it. In fact even before the Deputy Chief Engineer who passed Ext.P8 also the Board has no such contention. In any event in view of Ext.P8 order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, the Board cannot demand any further amount than what is permitted under Ext.P8. The operative portion of Ext.P8 reads thus: “Considering the above facts it is ordered to revise the impugned bill by assessing demand charges for 25 HP ie 21 IV A for the previous six months (ie 21 x 350 x 1.5x6 + 66150 Rs) and demand charges for 50 HP ie 41 kV A for previous one month (ie 41 x 350 x 1.5 x + 21525 Rs). The second respondent may revise the bill accordingly. No surcharge need be levied during the appeal pending period. Having concluded and decided as above the appeal is disposed of accordingly.” By the same, the Deputy chief Engineer has given the calculation for the entire amount although he has not stated W.P.(C)No. 1437 of 2008 -4- the final figure. Therefore nothing more than that what has been stated in Ext.P8 can be recovered from the petitioner. Accordingly Ext.P9 is quashed to that extent. The 2nd respondent shall issue a fresh bill for the amount mentioned in Ext.P8 order. The petitioner shall pay the said amount within one month from the date of receipt of the bill if not already paid pursuant to the interim order passed in this case. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/