IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 12740 of 1998(N)
1. .N.V.M.HOSPITAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KSEB
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :14/10/2008
O R D E R
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