IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 37267 of 2001(J)
1. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING CO.(SALES)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.E.B.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPINATH
For Respondent :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
O.P.No.37267 OF 2001
------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext.P4.
2. Petitioner is a LT consumer with consumer
No.8692. On 28.6.2001, the Special Squad of the Board
inspected the premises of the petitioner. It was found that,
as against the permissible connected load of 15 KW, an
additional connected load of 37 KW was found in his
premises. Subsequently, they were issued Ext.P1 bill for
Rs.54,771/- and Ext.P1(a) provides details of the
quantification which shows that fixed charges at 3 times
and energy charges at two times were demanded in Ext.P4.
O.P.No.21796/01 was filed challenging Exts.P1 and P1(a).
The Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment
directing the Executive Engineer to consider the objections.
3. In the meanwhile, petitioner submitted Ext.P3
O.P.No.37267/03 2
letter for regularizing the unauthorized additional load and
Ext.P3(a) shows that the petitioner also made additional cash
deposit. In pursuance to Ext.P2 judgment Executive Engineer
considered the issue and passed Ext.P4 confirming Exts.P1
and P1(a). It is these proceedings, which are under challenge
in this original petition.
4. The main contention raised in the original petition is
that, if at all, only the fixed charges can be levied and energy
charges having been paid, along with regular bills, the energy
charges could not have been demanded as done in Ext.P1.
However, learned counsel for the Board relies on clause 42(d)
of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and submitted that
the penalty as contemplated therein can be levied and it is
pointed out that, this proviso does not make a distinction as
sought to be made by the petitioner. Counsel also place
reliance on the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No1231/03,
where it is pointed out that the Division Bench is informed that
for the period prior to 18.7.2001, when clause 42(d) was
O.P.No.37267/03 3
amended, it was permissible for the Board to levy the energy
charges also in terms of clause 42(d) as it stood then. Learned
counsel also made reference to the Apex Court judgment in
Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Asian Art Printers (P) Ltd. (AIR
1995 SC 196), which interpreted the tariff order issued by the
appellant therein and contended that clause 42(d) does not
make any difference between the energy charges and fixed
charges. Having regard to the above facts, there is nothing
vitiating in Ext.P1 and P4.
Original Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
O.P.No.37267/03 4
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
———————
O.P.No.37267 OF 2001
————————
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT