IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 35406 of 2001(M)
1. K.V.MOHAMMED ZAKIR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.E.B.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDATHALA)
For Respondent :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :26/05/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
O.P.No.35406 of 2001
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the original petition is essentially against Exts.P8
& P12.
2. The petitioner, who claims to be a Civil Engineer, is
availing of electrical energy for domestic purposes, having an
authorised load of 36 KW with consumer number 3589/KRA to his
residential house at Kuriachira, Thrissur. On 25/07/2001, the Anti
Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises and found
unauthorised additional load of 8.761 KW. It was found that four
sheds were constructed in the premises, which were assigned
separate building numbers. It is stated that in one shed a generator
having a capacity of 25 KVA was installed without obtaining
clearance from the Electrical Inspector. In the 2nd shed, a freezer
was found with ice cream stored in large. In the 3rd and 4th sheds,
according to the Board, a furniture workshop was found with
carpentry work, with necessary machineries installed. It was also
OP No.35406/2001
-2-
found that from the domestic power supply that was availed of for
the residential premises of the petitioner, electric line was drawn
unauthorisedly to the sheds referred to above, and it was using the
energy thus drawn that the petitioner was carrying on the activities
in the aforesaid premises.
3. Accordingly, Ext.P2 notice was issued to the petitioner
informing that in view of the unauthorised use of energy, his tariff
will be changed to commercial tariff under LT VII A, and that unless
the petitioner regularised the unauthorised additional load, the
respondent will be continuining to penalise him in terms of the tariff
order. This was followed by Ext.P3, enclosing Ext.P4, a bill
demanding an amount of Rs.3,42,360/-. It would appear that
against the penal assessment, the petitioner filed Ext.P5
representation to the Deputy Chief Engineer, the 2nd respondent.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and filed OP
No.23785/2001. By Ext.P6 judgment, a learned judge of this Court
directed the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 and take a decision in
the matter with notice to the parties. It was also directed that on
the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.50,000/-, coercive action
OP No.35406/2001
-3-
shall be kept in abeyance.
4. Again the petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation before
the 2nd respondent. Parties were issued notice and after hearing the
parties, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P8, fixing liability of the
petitioner at Rs.1,87,778/-. The order shows that a portion of the
energy consumed was charged under the tariff as applicable to
domestic consumers. On the basis of Ext.P8, Ext.P12 revised
invoice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to pay the balance
amount of Rs.1,37,778/-. It was at that stage, challening Exts.P8 &
P12, the original petition was filed.
5. The main contention raised in the writ petition is relying
on Clause X of the Low Tension Tariff of the Board order dated
14/05/1999. According to the petitioner Clause X of the Low
Tension Tariff as provided in Ext.P11 entitles a domestic consumer
to use up to 20% of the consumption for any purpose within the
premises. It is stated that even if the allegations are accepted, the
consumption of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid clause,
and therefore, the impugned proceedings are illegal.
6. Having gone through Clause X of Ext.P11, in the light of
OP No.35406/2001
-4-
the definition to the term “Premises” as available in the Conditions
of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by the Board under the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, I am not in a position to accept the
plea raised in the writ petition. True, 20% of the consumption can
be diverted by a domestic consumer in the manner as provided in
Clause X. But, such diversion has to be confined to the premises, to
which energy is supplied. Clause 1A(b) of Conditions of Supply of
Electrical Energy defines the term “Premises” as a building,
permanent structure situated in an immovable property, details of
which have been specified in the application or agreement,
prescribed for grant of electrical connection. Viewed in the light of
Clause 1A(b) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, I must
hold that the expression “Premises” is to be understood as the
premises to which energy is supplied. This is for the reason that
only such premises are indicated in the application or agreement,
that is entered into between the parties. In this case, it is evident
from the impugned proceeding (Ext.P8) that supply was being
diverted to other sheds having separate door numbers and away
from the original premises, to which service connection was given.
OP No.35406/2001
-5-
Such other premises, mentioned in Ext.P8 cannot come within
Clause X of Ext.P11. If that be so, the contention raised cannot be
accepted.
7. Even otherwise, having regard to the findings in Ext.P8,
which discloses a clear case of unauthorised diversion of energy for
commercial purpose, I am not in a position to accept the case
pleaded in the original petition.
The original petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg