IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35084 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BAIJU N.K., AGED 39, S/O.LAKSHMANAN, NARIKALATHIL HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL SREEKRISHNA INTERNATIONAL VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VATAKARA. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VATAKARA. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 35084/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE BILL DTD.5.8.09. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE BY R3. P3. COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DTD.26.9.09. P4. COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER. P5. COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DTD.16.10.09. P6. COPY OF THE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER DTD.21.11.08. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 35084 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the bill for penalty for using unauthorised additional load. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents were aware of the fact that the petitioner is using additional load and the petitioner paid at the rate of Rs.5,000/- as fixed charges for the additional load. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that there is no justification for recovery of penalty for the unauthorised additional load. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records lead (sic) to Ext.P5 and quash ext P5 by issuing the writ of certiorari; forthwith, ii) To grant an interim order staying the operation of Exhibit P5 as against the petitioners.” 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submits that till date the petitioner has not filed any application for regularisation of the unauthorised load and without an application, the respondents cannot regularise the unauthorised additional load and consequently, the petitioner would be liable to pay penal charges for the unauthorised additional load. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the demand. 3. The petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted 2 to avail of the remedy by way of appeal. But he submits that, in the meanwhile, since the electricity supply has been disconnected, the respondents may be directed to restore the electricity connection. 5. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: If the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks, there would be a direction to the respondents to restore the electricity supply to the petitioner on the petitioner paying fifty per cent of the amount due, which would be construed as a payment for the purpose of maintaining the appeal itself. However, if the petitioner does not file appeal within two weeks, it would be open to the respondents to disconnect the electricity supply. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge