ALWAYE RULEX LTD. Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibit P10 order of the 2nd respondent appellate authority, issued under S. 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short), is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is an industrial consumer provided with a High Tension (HT) connection, on the basis of Ext. P1 agreement Based on an inspection conducted at the premises on 17.2.2005, Ext. P3 penal bill was issued along with Ext. P4 notice, alleging detection of unauthorized connected load of 156 KVA. Challenging Exts. P3 and P4 the petitioner had approached this court in W.P. (C) No. 8923/2005. Meanwhile, monthly bill for March 2005 was also issued imposing penalty, which was also challenged in W.P. (C) No. 13946/2005, Those Writ Petitions were disposed of through Ext. P6 common judgment, relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. This court specifically observed that, the appellate authority will consider the contention of the petitioner that there is distinction between 'connected load' and 'contract demand' and hence the penalty is not sustainable. Finding that the petitioner had already remitted 50% of the amount assessed on the basis of an interim order passed by this court, realisation of balance amount was stayed pending disposal of the appeal. Appeal filed consequent to Ext. P6 judgment was dismissed through Ext. P8. The appellate authority found that, in view of agreement executed by the petitioner for 300 KVA of contract demand, it was not permissible to add or change any electrical machinery without concurrence from the authorities of the Electricity Board and from the Electrical Inspectorate. Finding that the petitioner had added 156 KVA load without getting sanction, the additional load detected has to be treated as unauthorised, which is liable to be penalised until regularised or removed.

(2.) Exhibit P8 order was again challenged before this court in a Writ Petition. In Ext. P9 judgment this court observed that, the specific contention raised by the petitioner based on provisions contained in Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. Contention of the petitioner was that, the 'contract demand' had never exceeded and hence they are not liable to be penalized under Regulation 42(d). Therefore Exhibit P8 was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh disposal.

(3.) Exhibit P10 is the consequential order issued. The appellate authority had referred to Regulation 11(a) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 and Regulation 12(1) of K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, which insist that before connecting any electrical equipment it should be subject to inspection and approval by the Board's authorities and before the wiring or installation of apparatus, approval in writing from the Electrical Inspectorate should be obtained under Rule 63. Finding that the pre-condition of getting approval before installation of the additional machinery was not obtained, it is held that the additional installation exceeding the 'connected load' detected was unauthorised and liable to be penalised. The appellate authority found that the sanctioned connected load was 369 KVA only and on inspection it was detected that the petitioner had installed unauthorised load of 157 KVA, over and above the 369 KVA, without observing statutory provisions and without remitting the required charges to the K.S.E.B. Hence the assessment of penalty was upheld. The petitioner is challenging the findings in Ext. P10, in this Writ Petition.