Imposition of penalty under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, on detection of unauthorised additional load, which is confirmed by the appellate authority in the appeal filed under section 127, is under challenge. 2. There is no much dispute raised with respect to the factual findings regarding detection of unauthorised additional load to the tune of 35 KW. Main two contentions raised, both before the appellate authority as well as before this court are that, there was an earlier inspection and 9 KW additional load detected during that time was under continued imposition of penalty. Evidently the penalty was calculated only for the balance load of 26 KW for the entire period during which penalisation was continued with respect to the 9KW unauthorised additional load. Second contention of the petitioner is that penalty cannot be imposed for a previous period of one year because the usage of unauthorised additional load if any can be attributed only from the month after the continued penalisation was imposed based on usage of the unauthorised additional load 9 KW.
3. On facts it is evident that the present inspection was on 25.6.2009 and the previous inspection was on 18.2.2005. During the previous inspection unauthorised load was detected to the extent of 9KW. Whereas in the present inspection the extent of unauthorised load detected was 35 KW. The exact date on which the additional 26 KW was installed is not discernible. Hence penalisation imposed for a period of one year prior to the date of inspection is perfectly legal and justifiable.
4. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that the usage of electricity through the unauthorised additional load was also recorded in the meantime and hence penalisation with respect to energy charge cannot be sustained.
5. Section 126 of the Electricity Act provides that, when the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that the consumer was indulging in unauthorised usage of electricity, he shall make a best judgment assessment with respect to the electricity charges payable by the consumer. Sub section (5) of section 126 provides that such assessment should be made for the entire period during which unauthorised usage has taken place and if the period during which such unauthorised usage of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, then such period should be limited to 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. So also sub section (6) provides that the assessment under section 126 should be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services. Hence it is clear that when it is not ascertainable as to the exact date on which the unauthorised usage started, the consumer is liable to be penalised for a period of one year preceding the date of inspection, at twice the rate applicable to the tariff of electricity charges. The tariff of electricity charges includes two parts, one being the 'fixed charges' and the other being the 'energy charges'. Even assuming that the energy charges were already billed on the basis of consumption recorded in the meter, the unauthorised additional load is liable to be penalised at two times the normal tariff applicable. When normal tariff of electricity charges include fixed charges and energy charges, penalisation on energy charges after giving credit to whatever amount paid, cannot be held as unsustainable. In this regard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents have produced an order issued by the 1st respondent Board on 7.2.2008. It indicates that the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission had clarified that penalty is applicable to both fixed charges and energy charges for the unauthorised use of electricity as per section 126.
6. Under the above mentioned circumstances both the contentions raised challenging the assessment of penalty is confirmed in appeal, does not deserve merit.
Consequently the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/