IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 20855 of 2002(G)
1. M.V.ULLAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
For Respondent :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :05/12/2008
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.No. 20855 of 2002-G
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is conducting a small scale industrial unit. He is having
an electric connection with consumer No.5895 KJR. The connected load
sanctioned is 86 KW.
2. After inspection of the premises, Ext.P1 mahazar was issued to the
petitioner. The authorities found an unauthorised connected load of 11 KW.
Accordingly, penal bill was also issued to the petitioner along with Ext.P2
letter. As per Ext.P3, the demand is for Rs.1,52,678/-. This was challenged
before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P5.
3. The legal issue that is raised, is whether under Regulation 42(d)
of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the authorities could have
charged three times of the fixed charges and energy charges simultaneously.
This court in the decisions in J.D.T. Islam Orphanage Committee v. Asst.
Engineer, K.S.E.B. (2007 (3) KLT 388) and George Joseph v. K.S.E.B.
and others (ILR 2008 (4) Ker. 377), has held that imposition of three times
of fixed charges and energy charges cannot be justified and accordingly the
Board was directed to impose only three times of fixed charges. I
OP 20855/2002 2
respectfully follow the said view taken by this court in the above said
decisions. Here, no theft of energy is involved.
4. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P5 are quashed. The respondents are
entitled to levy only three times of fixed charges alone. The Board will
delete the amount claimed towards energy charges which was billed at twice
the tariff. The respondents shall issue a revised bill to the petitioner
showing the actual amount due. The amount already deposited during the
pendency of the original petition will be adjusted towards the bill in
question. Any excess amount collected, will be adjusted towards future
bills.
The original petition is allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
OP 20855/2002 3
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P. No.20855 of 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
5th December, 2008.