IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 8711 of 2003(K)
1. NIRMALA STUDENTS HOSTEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
For Respondent :SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :09/12/2008
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P. No. 8711 of 2003-K
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The point raised by the petitioner is against Ext.P5 order passed by
the second respondent disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner against
an additional bill issued in respect of the fixed charges as well as energy
charges. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity with consumer No.3199
which was originally categorised under LT VI B. In March 1998, the same
was changed from LT VI B to LT VII A. An inspection was conducted in
the premises which resulted in issuance of Ext.P1 bill for an amount of
Rs.48,188/-. Ext.P2 is the mahazar. It is based on the fact that there was an
unauthorised load to the extent of 3 KW to the premises. In Ext.P1, three
times for fixed charges and energy charges for a period of six months was
assessed. This is upheld in Ext.P5 by the Appellate Authority.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a recent decision of
this court in George Joseph v. K.S.E.B. and others (ILR 2008 (4)
Ker.377) to contend for the position that under clause 42(d) of the
Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, once the consumer has been
charged for the energy charges including the unauthorised load, there is no
justification for issuing a penal bill of three times of such charges and if at
OP 8711/2003 2
all any liability is there, it can be only in respect of the fixed charges.
3. In the above decision, after analysing the legal position in detail, it
was held in para 13 that “the impugned demand of two times rate of current
charges for the proportionate consumption to the unauthorised load in
addition to three times normal rate of fixed charges for unauthorised
additional load is clearly without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.”
4. Herein, the unauthorised connected load is 3 KW. There is no
charge of any theft or misuse of the energy supplied to the premises. What
is found objectionable is the non-regularisation of the unauthorised
additional load. In view of the above, the matter is squarely covered by the
dictum laid down in the above decision.
5. Therefore, I quash Exts.P1 and P5 to the above extent. It is
declared that the petitioner is liable to be charged only for the fixed charges
at three times for a period of six months. A revised bill will be issued
accordingly. If any amount has been collected during the pendency of the
original petition, the same shall be adjusted and if any excess amount has
OP 8711/2003 3
been paid, that will be adjusted towards the future bills.
The original petition is allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
OP 8711/2003 4
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P. No.8711 of 2003-K
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
9th December, 2008.