Challenge is against Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent appellate authority, under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Penalty was imposed under Section 126 on the basis that unauthorised extension was detected at the premises. Eventhough various contentions are raised disputing the factual findings, this court do not find any materials to interfere. However, learned counsel pointed out that, computation of penalty by adopting tariff applicable to authorised temporary extensions, under LT VIII (at present LT III) cannot be sustained. It is contended that, even assuming that there was unauthorised usage of electricity, penalty can be imposed only at the tariff at which the connection is provided, which is LT 1(a). 2. The issue now stands covered through decisions of this court in Jomy Thomas Manjooran V. Kerala State Electricity Board (2013 (1) KLT 595), J.D.T.
W.P.(C). No. 421 of 2014 -2-
Islam Orphanage Committee V. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. (2007 (3) KLT 388) and Viswanathan R.V. V. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others (2014 (1) KHC 498). Dictum contained in the above rulings are to the effect that, the tariff applicable for temporary authorised extensions cannot be made use of for penalising any consumer on the allegation of detection of unauthorised extension.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the assessment of penalty which is confirmed in Ext.P6 is liable to be revised. The petitioner can be penalised only to the extent of 2 times of the fixed charges on the unauthorisd additional load connected and to the extent of energy charges on the proportionate consumption of UAL, at the rate applicable under LT 1(a), after giving credit to the payments already made, for the period for which the penalty was originally imposed.
4. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by quashing Exts.P3, P4 and P6. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue revised penal bill recalculating the W.P.(C). No. 421 of 2014 -3-
penalty in tune with the observations contained herein above. Revised bill shall be issued to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. Amounts if any already remitted shall be appropriated in tune with the revised demand. One month time for payment of balance if any shall be given to the petitioner, from the date of receipt of the revised demand. On the other hand, if there is excess payment, the same shall be refunded/adjusted within 3 months.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /true copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn