Ext.P3 appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of power vested under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner is the Chairman of a Trust running a Hospital, wherein the electric connection is provided. Pursuant to inspection conducted on 06.02.2008 by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) unauthorised additional load to the extent of 39 KW connected at the premises was detected. The Authorised Officer had imposed penalty to the tune of `51,480/-, which was challenged in appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in Ext.P3 order has rejected most of the contentions. However, the penalty was directed to be reduced by computing the unauthorised additional load as 39 KW instead of 37 KW, and directed the Authorised Officer to revise the bill accordingly. It is aggrieved by rejection of the contentions raised on various aspects, the appellate order is challenged, in this writ petition. 2. Main contention raised before the appellate authority was that, eventhough various installations were connected to the supply, most of them were not in use. Therefore calculation of the total unauthorised additional load based on total load capacity of those installations, cannot be sustained. The appellate authority found that the petitioner cannot be excluded from penalisation on the basis that the additional installations are not put to use. Penalty is to be imposed once the Assessing Authority (Authorised Officer) become convinced of the fact that the consumer had indulged in unauthorised use of electricity. Unauthorised use of electricity is explained under Section 126(6)(b), which includes usage of electricity by means not authorised by the concerned authority or licensee. If the consumer installs any additional installations exceeding the authorised connected load, usage of electricity through such installations need to be considered as usage through means which are not authorised by the licensee.
Therefore if the consumer had exceeded the authorised connected load by installing additional equipments or gadgets, that will amount to unauthorised usage of electricity. Penalty is imposed mainly on the fixed charges with respect to the additional unauthorised load, calculating the load capacity of the installations. Penalty on energy charges was imposed only on the basis of the proportion of recorded consumption, with respect to the unauthorised load, after giving credit to payments already made. Therefore contention to the effect that the computation of penalty is not correct on the basis that the additional installations were not regularly used, cannot be countenanced or accepted.
3. A further contention raised in this writ petition is that, the load capacity of X-ray unit installed at the premises ought to have been taken as 4KVA. Eventhough it consumes 27 KVA at working, the long time power demand will be only 4 KVA, is the contention. When the additional installation having load capacity of 27 KVA is found fitted unauthorisedly, there is no merit in the contention that the said installation will consume maximum power only at the time of working. The unauthorised installation and its usage will amount to unauthorsed usage of electricity contemplated under Section 126, liable to be penalised. Therefore the maximum load capacity of such installation has to be reckoned.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity with the order of the appellate authority which confirmed the assessment. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of penalty assessed was already paid. Hence the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /true copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn