IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 12740 of 1998(N) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.N.M. HOSPITAL, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.E.B., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KSEB, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CENTRAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.12740/98. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3.2.97 BY R3. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.5.2.97 TO R3. P3. COPY OF THE BILL FOR FEB. TO MARCH, 97. P4. COPY OF THE -DO- APRIL & MAY, 97. P5. COPY OF THE -DO- FOR JUNE & JULY, 97. P6. COPY OF THE -DO- AUGUST, 97. P7. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.9.1.98 FROM R2. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.11.12.97. P9. COPY OF THE DEMAND FOR 11/97. P10. COPY OF THE DEMAND FOR 12/97. P11. COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.14.1.98. P12. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.2.1.98 IN O.P.NO.1375/98. P13. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.6.98 BY R1. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.12740 of 1998 ================== Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. On inspection of the petitioner's premises on 13.1.1997, the officials of the Electricity Board found out that the petitioner was using unauthorised load, as a result of which, the petitioner was drawing load as applicable to high tension consumers, although the petitioner was only a low tension consumer. Therefore, by resort to the proceedings under Regulation 42(d) of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990, the respondents demanded fixed charges on the additional load at the rate applicable to high tension consumers and current charges in respect of the additional load. Apart from that, since it was during power cut period, after the power cut was over the respondents refixed the quota alloted for the petitioner on daily basis retrospectively, although the petitioner's quota was fixed on monthly basis while the power cut was in progress. According to the petitioner, both the actions of the respondents in this regard are unsustainable. Although the petitioner raised all these o.p.12740/98 2 contentions in an appeal, the petitioner's appeal had been rejected by Ext.P13 order. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the original order, viz., Ext.P1, and Ext.P13 appellate order in this regard. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to Exts.P1, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P9, P10 and P13 and quash the same. ii) To direct the respondents to demand and realise energy charges only under low tension from the petitioner.” 2. As far as the first issue is concerned, I need not consider the matter in detail in so far as in the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent himself admits that the petitioner should have been billed for the unauthorised load also only at the rate applicable to low tension consumer and not as applicable to high tension consumers in view of the Board order No.3225/98 (Plg.Com.3639/98) dated 20.10.1998. But such demand can only be for fixed charges on the additional load and not for current charges under Regulation 43 in addition to the fixed charges as held by me in O.P.Nos.26123, 27988 and 29518 of 1999. 3. In respect of the other issue, the very same issue was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in O.P.No.20313/ 1998, in which the learned Judge came to the conclusion that o.p.12740/98 3 such retrospective refixation of quota, on daily basis after the power cut period was over, is illegal and unsustainable. The learned Judge also found that the imposition of penalty on the basis of that retrospective refixation of quota on daily basis after earlier fixing the quota on monthly basis, is also not justifiable. I am in respectful agreement with that decision. Therefore, on the second point also the petitioner is entitled to succeed to the above extent. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed to the above extent. The third respondent is directed to issue fresh bills to the petitioner in accordance with the above findings. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.12740/98 4 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.12740 of 1998-N =============== J U D G M E N T 6th October, 2008