IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33851 of 2010(F)
1. MERRY LAND FROZEN CREAMS PVT.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :08/02/2011
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. Electricity
connection was provided to the petitioner’s industrial unit in the
year 2005 with a connected load of 18 KW. Shortly after the
electricity connection was provided, the petitioner applied for
additional connected load. The said request was pending for quite
some time. While matters stood thus an inspection of the
premises was conducted on 25.2.2009 by the Anti Power Theft
Squad of the Electricity Board. They prepared Ext.P7 site
mahazar which disclosed that the petitioner was using energy in
excess of the connected load by installing additional machinery.
Ext.P8 provisional assessment order was thereupon passed calling
upon the petitioner to show cause why the sum of Rs.2,54,848/-
should not be demanded as electricity charges. The petitioner
submitted his reply. In the meanwhile, on the application
submitted by the petitioner for additional connected load he was
informed that he should pay the cost of installation of one 100
W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010
-:2:-
KVA transformer. By Ext.P14 order passed on 26.10.2010 the
Assistant Executive Engineer confirmed the provisional
assessment. He also directed the petitioner to regularise the
unauthorised additional load in terms of paragraph 51(5) of the
Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply,
2005. Ext.P14 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the
petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to
avail the power supply as at present upto 31.12.2010.
2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had
used energy in excess of the connected load without the sanction
of the Board. The petitioner does not dispute the assessment of
energy charges made by the respondent in Ext.P8 provisional
order. The only request made by the petitioner before the
Assistant Executive Engineer was that he should be given time
upto 31.12.2010 to continue the existing arrangement and that
as the industry is to be shifted to another place it would be
uneconomical to pay for a transformer. By the impugned order
the Assistant Executive Engineer granted the petitioner 15 days’
time to regularise the unauthorised additional load in terms of
W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010
-:3:-
paragraph 51(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and
Conditions of Supply, 2005. In my opinion on the admitted facts
the stand taken by the respondents cannot be said to be illegal.
Under section 46 of the Act read with regulation 4 of the Kerala
State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Accounting)
Regulations, 2005, framed by the Kerala State Electricity
Regulatory Commission the petitioner is bound to meet the
expenses for installing a transformer in order to give him
additional power. Under regulation 51(5) of the Kerala State
Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 Low
Tension consumers who have exceeded the connected load are
bound to take steps to regularise the unauthorised additional
load failing which the Board is entitled to disconnect the supply.
In such circumstances as the petitioner had only sought time till
31.12.2010 to shift to another premises and to permit him to
continue to use the existing power supply till such time, the writ
petition has become infructuous. I therefore, find no grounds to
entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the
W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010
-:4:-
observation that if the petitioner continues to use the existing
power supply without regularising the additional connected load it
will be open to the respondents to realise penal charges from the
petitioner so long as he does not regularise the unauthorised
load.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————
W.P(C).No.33851 of 2010
—————————-
JUDGMENT
8th February, 2011
