Jayachandran vs The Kerala State Electricity Board and The Assistant Executive Engineer

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The Appellant/Petitioner challenges the judgment dated 24.1.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 992/2011, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner.

On 5.10.2009, the Sub Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board conducted an inspection at the industrial unit of the Petitioner. It was found that the Petitioner had not installed capacitors in the motors. A notice was issued, demanding payment of Rs. 2,83,733/-, as penal charges. The Petitioner challenged that order before the Consumers'' Grievance Redressal Forum. The Redressal Forum accepted the contention of the Petitioner in part and directed the bill to be revised. The Forum held that levy of penal interest shall be made only from the date of inspection, viz., 5.10.2009. The Petitioner was not fully satisfied with that order, since even after that order, no inspection of the site was made by the Electricity officials. He challenged the same before the State Electricity Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, by Ext.P4 order dated 18.11.2010, held that penal charges can be levied only till the date of installation of the capacitors. The Board was directed to inspect the premises and to verify whether the capacitors were installed. According to the Petitioner, the capacitors were installed on 9.1.2010. However, there is no record to indicate that the installation of the capacitors was intimated to the Electricity Board. The Petitioner sent Ext.P5 letter dated 22.11.2010 to the Electricity Board. Ext.P5 is styled as a reminder to another letter. Shortly after receipt of Ext.P5, the Assistant Executive Engineer conducted the inspection, on 30.11.2010. Penal charges are now claimed from 5.10.2009, the date of first inspection, to 29.11.2010.

The learned Single Judge held that as there is no record to show that the Petitioner installed the capacitors in January, 2010, as claimed by him, no relief could be granted to the Petitioner. We are of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is legal and proper. There is no infirmity in the judgment or in the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that at least a breathing time may be granted to the Appellant to pay the penal charges. He also submitted that the electricity supply was disconnected yesterday. Accordingly, there will be a direction to effect reconnection of the electricity supply to the Appellant''s establishment, on fulfilment of the following conditions:

(i) The Appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/-, and on such payment, the reconnection shall be effected.

(ii) The Appellant shall pay the entire balance amount within a period of three months.

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.