IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 31203 of 2004(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. HOTEL AMIRTHA, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, S.HARI MURALI, SON OF SREEDHARA PANICKER HINDU, AGED 43, RESIDING AT BRINDAVAN, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 102. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.S.B.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD (HEAD QUARTERS), K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APTS (SR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 31203/04. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DTD.23.8.01. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.28.8.01 BY R5. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.9.01. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.6.7.04. P5. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BY THE KSEB. P6. COPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER DTD.28.9.04. P7. COPY OF THE BILL DTD.6.10.04. P7A. COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.6.10.04. P8. COPY OF THE BILL DTD.6.10.04. P8A. COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.6.10.04. P9. COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.6.10.04. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.31203 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand for penalty in respect of unauthorised additional load used by the petitioner in respect of his three electricity connections. The contention of the petitioner is that the demand consists of penalty on fixed charges and current charges. According to the petitioner, as per the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, penalty charges are payable only in respect of fixed charges and not in respect of other energy charges. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in George Joseph v. K.S.E.B. [2008(4) ILR Ker.377]. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board would submit that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner has been taken in appeal before the Division Bench and the appeal is pending. But the Standing Counsel has no case that the Court has granted stay of that judgment. In the above circumstances, following that judgment, I quash the impugned demands and direct the respondents to recalculate the demands, confining penalty only to fixed charges, excluding the penalty on energy charges. On recalculation of the amounts due, the amount already paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted against the revised bill. The petitioner shall pay the revised 2 bill on demand. If the amounts paid are more than the revised demands, the balance shall be adjusted against future bills of the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge