~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing Ext.P1 mahazar, P4 final assessment order, P4(a) and P5 penal invoices and ii) Declare that the respondents are not entitled to impose penalty by applying LT III B tariff for the purpose of unauthorised extension.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to have imposed penalty as shown in Exts.P4 and P4(a). The learned counsel submits that the extension of electric line taken from the 'Hospital' to a 'Dental Clinic' situated in the same premises and as such, there is no diversion or unauthorised use of electricity.
3. The version of the petitioner is sought to be rebutted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent Board stating that the factual position is discernible from Ext.P1 W.P.(C) No.30864/2014 2 mahazar and the that the petitioner admittedly has not obtained any authorisation or sanction to have taken the supply to the 'Dental Clinic' on her own.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the maximum liability, if any, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, could only be to an extent of 1.46 lakhs, whereas the petitioner has now been sought to satisfy a sum of Rs. 6,16,850/- as discernible from Ext.P4/ P4(a). It is also stated that how the amount is to be quantified under the relevant provisions of law, has been considered and declared by this Court as per the decisions reported by this Court in J.D.T.Islam Orphanage Vs. Asst. Engineer, KSEB [2007(3) KLT 388] and Jomy Thomas Manjooran Vs Kerala State Electricity Board [2013(1) KLT 595]. It is contended that the present proceedings against the petitioner stand quite contrary to the mandate of the above decisions. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the unauthorised extension has been reportedly dismantled and if the same is not effected, it will be effected forthwith. The said submission is recorded.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the extent of liability now sought to be satisfied by the petitioner as W.P.(C) No.30864/2014 3 per Exts.P4/ P4(a) is liable to be re-computed, to be in conformity with the statutory requirement and the law declared by this Court as per the decisions cited supra. Accordingly, they are set aside and the Assessing Authority is directed to re-compute the figures adopting 'appropriate tariff' in terms of the decisions as aforesaid and to raise a fresh demand, if any. The proceedings shall be finalised, at the earliest, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time, on condition that the petitioner shall satisfies a sum of Rs.1.46 lakhs within two weeks, which payment shall be subject to the outcome of the orders to be passed by the Assessing Authority.
6. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
ps/21/11/2014 Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRAMENON, JUDGE.