P.M. MATHAI Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a consumer of electricity, running a hospital had purchased a new X-ray Unit with capacity of 300 am and requested the respondents to grant allocation of sufficient power to install the unit. The same could not be granted at that time due to technical problem. The petitioner, therefore, requested the purchaser Company to calibrate and block the capacity of the X-ray unit to 100 am for which the petitioner has been given authorization from the respondents. Petitioner states that Ext. P1 evidences the same.

(2.) The 4th respondent had inspected the premises of the petition on 19/12/2007 and alleging that there is an additional connected load issued a bill. The petitioner, then produced Ext. P1 before the 4th respondent and accordingly, the bill was revised andthe petitioner had paid the reduced amount and the proceedings were closed by Ext. P4. The petitioner submits that after almost three years, on the basis of an audit objection, petitioner was asked to make a further payment of Rs.1,32,392.00 as short assessment for penal charges due to the unauthorised additional load. Petitioner had filed statutory appeal against the same which was also dismissed. Challenging Exts. P5, P7 and P8, this Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) The Kerala State Electricity Board has filed a counter affidavit stating that the connected load of consumer exceeded 50 KVA, and with the installation of X-ray machine, the petitioner had to place a transformer at his own cost. Board also cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the connected load of the X-ray machine was reduced from 300 mA to 100 mA which is nearly onethird of the capacity. It was in such circumstances, that the Regional Audit Officer found the sanctioned load of the petitioner was 49 KW and as the petitioner was using 81 KW, which means a load of 32 KW was being used unauthorised for which the petitioner was penalised under the impugned proceedings.