The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act doing banking business. Its Head office is situated in a 4 storied building. The first and second floor of the building is being used by the Society for its business purposes, whereas the third floor is used as a conference hall and the ground floor is to be leased out to public for business purposes. An electric connection was provided to the building for office purpose of the petitioner society, under Con. No.25743, with a sanctioned connected load of 69 KW. On 21-05-2012 a surprise inspection was conducted by the Anti-Power Theft Squad attached to the 1st respondent Board, pursuant to which penalty was imposed based on an allegation that unauthorised additional load to the extent of 58 KW was seen connected. The demand for payment of Rs.5,75,303/- was objected by the petitioner through Ext.P5. Alleging non- consideration of the objection, the petitioner had approached this court in a writ petition. In Ext.P6 judgment this court directed the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh inspection in the presence of the petitioner and to finalise the matter, after affording opportunity of personal hearing. Accordingly the 2nd respondent had finalised the assessment through Ext.R6 demand, reducing the penalty to Rs.3,11,333/-. Aggrieved by the assessment the petitioner had approached the 4th respondent, the appellate authority. The appeal petition was dismissed through Ext.P10 order. It is challenging the assessment of penalty under Section 126 which is confirmed in appeal, this writ petition is filed.
2. Contentions of the petitioner before the appellate authority as well as before this court is mainly on the ground that an application for sanctioned additional power submitted by the petitioner was pending disposal before the authority concerned, at the time when the inspection was conducted. As rightly pointed out by the appellate authority, the pendency of an application for additional power allocation will not entitle the petitioner to install any additional connected load. Since there is clear evidence to the effect that the unauthorised additional load was connected, there is no illegality or irregularity in the imposition of penalty, on the basis that the petitioner had indulged in unauthorised usage of electricity, as contemplated under Section 126 (6) (b).
3. Further contention is that a major portion of the unauthorised usage detected was with respect to the ground floor of the building which started only from 14-05- 2012 onwards, and hence penalisation for a previous period of one year is not sustainable. It is clearly mentioned in the impugned appellate order that, while finalising the assessment the 2nd respondent had accepted the said contention and limited the assessment with respect to 29 KW of unauthorised additional load in the ground floor for the period from 14-05-2012 to 25-05-2012, i.e. only for 7 days. Therefore this court do not find any merit in the very same contention repeated in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous efforts to point out that, usage with respect to the additional installations in the ground floor and third floor was only by way of a Diesel Generator installed. It is pointed out that, evidence was produced before the appellate authority by way of Bills for purchase of Diesel used in the Generator. It is pointed out that during the subsequent inspection conducted on the basis of direction issued by this court in Ext.P6 judgment, it was found that no change over facility was provided with respect to installations in the ground floor and third floor. However, the authority who conducted the first inspection had categorically mentioned that, on 21-05-2005 it was found that the Generator set was connected only through a change over switch facility facilitating usage of energy from the supply of the electric connection in question.
5. The above dispute, being a factual question, cannot be adjudicated by this court without availability of any convincing materials to interfere with the findings contained in Ext.P10. Further it is noticed that the penalty on energy charges was imposed only based on the proportionate consumption recorded in the meter for the previous period of one year. Even assuming that the petitioner had used the Generator set for running the additional load during any time, no consumption would have been recorded in the Energy Meter. Hence there is no merit in the contention that imposition of penalty based on the proportionate consumption recorded, is unsustainable.
6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, there is no convincing reasons warranting interference of this court with respect to the penalty imposed, which is confirmed in appeal. Therefore the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
7. However the petitioner is permitted to remit the balance amount if any outstanding in 3 equal monthly installments falling due on or before 15-06-2014 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding 2 months. If the petitioner remits the balance amount within the time stipulated as above, no penal interest/surcharges shall be levied.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
True copy P.A to Judge