Kerala State Electricity Board vs M.S.Moosa on 5 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2373 of 2008()


1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.S.MOOSA, S/O.SULAIMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :05/10/2010

 O R D E R
              K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
        ------------------------------------------------------
                     W.A.No.2373 of 2008
            ----------------------------------------------
           Dated, this the 5th day of October, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

K.M.Joseph, J.

Appellant is the Kerala State Electricity Board. The

writ petition was filed seeking to set aside Ext.P2 electricity bill

and Ext.P10 order. The complaint of the Board was that the

petitioner had taken unauthorised extension for another

purpose and he was sought to mulcted with penalty. The

learned Single Judge took the view that since the energy

consumed through the extension has already been measured

in the meter at the main premises and charges have been

levied also the only course open to the Board under Regulation

42 (d) is to levy the penalty in respect of the fixed charges or

to disconnect the supply. The learned counsel for the

appellant brought to our notice the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1553 of 2009. Therein this

Court has accepted the case of the Board that the purport of

the judgment in W.A.No.1231/2003 was that the amendment

brought to the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy on

W.A.No.2373 of 2008 -2-

18.9.2002 did not have retrospective effect and has remitted

back for the case for consideration of question of penalty in

the facts of each case. But, the learned counsel for the

respondent would alert us to the pertinent fact in this case

namely that the amendment was on 18.9.2002 while the

inspection was in December, 2002, that is to say, the

respondent will be entitled to be treated on the basis of the

amended provision.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

we see no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.

(M.C.HARI RANI)
JUDGE.

MS