The petitioner is the registered consumer of an industrial connection provided in the unit manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines. Pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) on 20.9.2011, Ext.P2 provisional assessment along with Ext.P3 invoice was issued, imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.11417/- under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. The penalty was imposed alleging detection of unauthorised additional load connected to the extent of 6332 watts. The petitioner filed objections against the provisional assessment contending that there was no unauthorised additional load and that the connected load was infact enhanced in the year 2006 itself. He had produced bills evidencing remittance of additional security deposit and additional service connection charges (Ext.P4 and P5) in the year 2006 itself. While considering the objections and while finalising the assessment, the 1st respondent had accepted the said evidence and found that the additional load was regularised on 19.3.2006. Therefore the penal assessment was withdrawn. But an arrear bill for short collection of fixed charges for the period 3/2006 to 9/11, to the tune of R.16,767/- was issued against the petitioner. Calculation statement attached along with Ext.P6 final order of assessment issued indicates that, fixed charges on the additional load of 6 KW alone was imposed for the above said period after giving credit to the interest on ACD remitted by the petitioner for a period of 5 years. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 the petitioner preferred a complaint before the 3rd respondent. But the said complaint was disposed of through Ext.P9 order upholding Ext.P6, however permitting the petitioner to make payment of the balance amount, after deducting payment already made, in 24 equal monthly instalments. It is aggrieved by Ext.P9 this writ petition is filed.
3. Petitioner relies on Ext.P11 reply received under the Right to Information Act in order to contend that, eventhough the connected load was enhanced during the year 2006, power supply was facilitated only in the year 2011. But on a perusal of Ext.P11 reply given it does not indicate that the additional connected load was sanctioned only in the year 2011. Further such contention cannot be countenanced in view of the stand taken by the petitioner before the 1st respondent to the effect that the additional load was regularised as early as in the 2006.
4. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was exonerated from the liability for payment of penalty under section 126, on accepting the fact that there was enhancement of the connected load permitted during the year 2006. But the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the fact that no fixed charges were collected on the enhanced connected load from 2006 onwards till the inspection and till the issuance of provisional bill. Evidently there occurred a short assessment of the fixed charges legally due . What was demanded through Exts.P6 and P7 is only the difference amount of fixed charges which was leviable during the relevant period. No valid ground is raised disputing the liability, as the charges remain not collected from the petitioner during the relevant time.
5. Under the above mentioned circumstances this court do not find any merit in the challenge raised against Ext.P6 which is confirmed in Ext.P9 order.
Consequently the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/