Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) In the case of LT domestic consumers, the penalty for  unauthorised additional load shall be 50/- per KW per month or part thereof for the additional load till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per rules.

(ii) In the case of LT customers other than domestic consumers, the penalty for unauthorised additional load shall be levied at the rate of twice the fixed charges per KW of additional load per month or part thereof till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per rules.

27. Regulation 153(15) of the Supply Code, 2014 has undergone amendment by the Kerala Electricity Supply (Amendment) Code 2016, which came into force on 4.2.2016, by adding the words 'except in the case of consumers billed on the basis of connected load' at the end of that sub-regulation. Such an amendment was made when it was found that, the application of Regulation 153(15) to the consumers who are charged on connected load basis, would result in the licensees incurring financial loss in as much as, for the additional connected load the licensees are entitled for charges demanded on connected load basis.

33. W.P.(C)No.2159 of 2009:- The 2nd petitioner is a consumer under Electrical Section, Chottanikkara with Consumer No.11661 under LT-VIIA commercial tariff, with a sanctioned connected load of 29KW, for conducting a rest house in the premises of Chottanikkara Temple. On 13.5.2008, the Regional Audit Officer of the Kerala State Electricity Board conducted a surprise inspection in the said premises, along with the officials of Electrical Section, Chottanikkara. In the said inspection it was found that, the electrical connection of the rest house (Narayana Mandiram) has been extended to the three buildings (Darsana, Sudarsana and Karthika) situated about 50 meters away from the rest house and also to two lodges (A-Block and (C-Block) situated about 200 meters away from the rest house, with a combined connected load of 79,130W (rounded to 80KW). Based on Ex.P1 site mahazar dated 13.5.2008, the 2nd petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice and Ext.P3 penal demand dated 14.5.2008 for 6,28,321/-. By Ext.P2, the 2nd petitioner was required to regularise the unauthorised additional load as early as possible, since the penal charges will continue until regularisation. Ext.P3 was followed by a revised demand, i.e., Ext.P4  penal demand dated 14.5.2008 for 6,18,977/-. Challenging the penal demand in Ext.P4, the 2nd petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Ernakulam. The appellate authority disposed of the said appeal by Ext.P5 order dated 20.1.2008 virtually upholding the penal demand made in Ext.P4 for unauthorised additional load detected in the inspection conducted on 13.5.2008, however, subject to certain changes in the calculation of the penal charges. All other contentions raised by the 2nd petitioner were negatived. At the time of filing that appeal, the 2nd petitioner remitted 3,09,489/- towards 50% of the demand made in Ext.P4, vide Ext.P6 receipt dated 26.6.2008. Based on Ext.P5 order, the 2nd petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 revised demand dated 12.12.2008 for 6,18,327/-. After deducting the remittance already made vide Ext.P6, the 2nd petitioner was required to remit the balance amount of 3,09,489/- within one week from the date of receipt of Ext.P7. Challenging the said demand and seeking refund/adjustment of the amount already remitted, the petitioners are before this Court seeking various reliefs. On 20.1.2009, while admitting the writ petition on file, this Court granted interim stay of Ext.P7 for a period of two months, on condition that the petitioners shall remit 50,000/- within a period of one month. The said interim stay was extended until further orders on 20.7.2009. According to the  petitioners, the only irregularity detected at the time of inspection was unauthorised additional load. Since the petitioners have already paid energy charges for the entire quantity of electricity consumed in the premises, levy of penal charges in respect of fixed charges for unauthorised additional load alone is legally permissible and as such, levy of penal charges in respect of energy charges already paid is legally impermissible. In order to buttress the said contention, the petitioners would rely on the decisions of this Court in JDT Islam Orphanage Committee v. Assistant Engineer, KSEB (2007 (3) KLT 388) and George Joseph v. KSEB (2008 (4) ILR 377).

39. W.P.(C)No.3842 of 2016:- The petitioner is a consumer under Electrical Section, Valapattanam with Consumer No.1963 under LT-IV industrial tariff, with a sanctioned connected load of 82.185KW, for conducting a plywood manufacturing unit. On 12.9.2013, Anti Power Theft Squad conducted an inspection in the said premises along with the officials of Electrical Section, Valapattanam. In the said inspection, an unauthorised additional load of 74.225KW was detected in the premises. Based on Ex.P1 site mahazar dated 12.9.2013, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 penal demand dated 23.9.2013 for 4,60,506/- for an unauthorised additional load of 74KW. In Ext.P2 penal demand, 1,06,560/- is demanded towards fixed charges and 3,53,946/- towards energy charges. The petitioner objected to the said penal demand mainly complaining about the proportionate energy charges levied. After considering the said objection, the assessing authority confirmed the said penal demand in Ext.P3 final bill dated 18.10.2013. Challenging Ext.P3 demand, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, which ended in dismissal by Ext.P5 order dated 26.8.2014, which was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.24513 of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, by directing  the appellate authority newly constituted in terms of Section 127 of the Electricity Act to dispose of Ext.P4 appeal. The appellate authority conducted a hearing on 25.9.2015 and passed Ext.P7 order dated 13.1.2016, upholding the penal demand made in Ext.P3. Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 and P7, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that proportionate energy charges cannot be levied in a case where only unauthorised additional load and no theft or tampering with the meter is involved, since the charges for the energy already metered consequent on the additional load had already been paid and no additional penal charges can be imposed on the very same consumption. By interim order dated 2.2.2016, this Court stayed all steps pursuant to Exts.P3 and P7 including disconnection of power supply to Consumer No.1963 for one month, which interim order was extended until further orders on 3.3.2016.