K.V. Mohammed Zakir vs K.S.E.B.

Antony Dominic, J.—Challenge in the original petition is essentially against Exts.P8 & P12.

The petitioner, who claims to be a Civil Engineer, is availing of electrical energy for domestic purposes, having an authorised load of 36 KW with consumer number 3589/KRA to his residential house at Kuriachira, Thrissur. On 25/07/2001, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises and found unauthorised additional load of 8.761 KW. It was found that four sheds were constructed in the premises, which were assigned separate building numbers. It is stated that in one shed a generator having a capacity of 25 KVA was installed without obtaining clearance from the Electrical Inspector. In the 2nd shed, a freezer was found with ice cream stored in large. In the 3rd and 4th sheds, according to the Board, a furniture workshop was found with carpentry work, with necessary machineries installed. It was also found that from the domestic power supply that was availed of for the residential premises of the petitioner, electric line was drawn unauthorisedly to the sheds referred to above, and it was using the energy thus drawn that the petitioner was carrying on the activities in the aforesaid premises.

Accordingly, Ext.P2 notice was issued to the petitioner informing that in view of the unauthorised use of energy, his tariff will be changed to commercial tariff under LT VII A, and that unless the petitioner regularised the unauthorised additional load, the respondent will be continuining to penalise him in terms of the tariff order. This was followed by Ext.P3, enclosing Ext.P4, a bill demanding an amount of Rs. 3,42,360/-. It would appear that against the penal assessment, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation to the Deputy Chief Engineer, the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and filed OP No. 23785/2001. By Ext.P6 judgment, a learned judge of this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 and take a decision in the matter with notice to the parties. It was also directed that on the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, coercive action shall be kept in abeyance.

Again the petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation before the 2nd respondent. Parties were issued notice and after hearing the parties, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P8, fixing liability of the petitioner at Rs. 1,87,778/-. The order shows that a portion of the energy consumed was charged under the tariff as applicable to domestic consumers. On the basis of Ext.P8, Ext.P12 revised invoice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,37,778/-. It was at that stage, challening Exts.P8 & P12, the original petition was filed.

The main contention raised in the writ petition is relying on Clause X of the Low Tension Tariff of the Board order dated 14/05/1999. According to the petitioner Clause X of the Low Tension Tariff as provided in Ext.P11 entitles a domestic consumer to use up to 20% of the consumption for any purpose within the premises. It is stated that even if the allegations are accepted, the consumption of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid clause, and therefore, the impugned proceedings are illegal.

Having gone through Clause X of Ext.P11, in the light of the definition to the term "Premises" as available in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by the Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, I am not in a position to accept the plea raised in the writ petition. True, 20% of the consumption can be diverted by a domestic consumer in the manner as provided in Clause X. But, such diversion has to be confined to the premises, to which energy is supplied. Clause 1A(b) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy defines the term "Premises" as a building, permanent structure situated in an immovable property, details of which have been specified in the application or agreement, prescribed for grant of electrical connection. Viewed in the light of Clause 1A(b) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, I must hold that the expression "Premises" is to be understood as the premises to which energy is supplied. This is for the reason that only such premises are indicated in the application or agreement, that is entered into between the parties. In this case, it is evident from the impugned proceeding (Ext.P8) that supply was being diverted to other sheds having separate door numbers and away from the original premises, to which service connection was given. Such other premises, mentioned in Ext.P8 cannot come within Clause X of Ext.P11. If that be so, the contention raised cannot be accepted.

Even otherwise, having regard to the findings in Ext.P8, which discloses a clear case of unauthorised diversion of energy for commercial purpose, I am not in a position to accept the case pleaded in the original petition.

The original petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.