The petitioner is a consumer of electricity under the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the petitioner's premises and prepared Ext.P1 mahazar on 23.11.2000. In the same, there is no allegation of tampering with the meter or theft of electrical energy by the petitioner. The finding in Ext.P1 is that one phase of the connection to the meter was not working and consequently the meter was not recording the consumption correctly. On the basis of Ext.P1 mahazar, Ext.P2 bill and demand notice were issued by the 2nd respondent demanding payment of Rs. 9,40,267/- as additional charges for the previous six months from the date of inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad, which included penalty of 3 times the energy allegedly short recorded. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in O.P.No. 3427/2000. This Court, by Ext.P10 judgment, directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner filed Ext.P11 appeal. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P12 notice directing the petitioner to remit 20% of the amount as a condition for considering Ext.P11 appeal. That notice was quashed by this Court by Ext.P13 judgment in O.P.4921/2001. Thereafter, Ext.P11 appeal was disposed of confirming Ext.P2. That order was set aside by this Court in W.P (C) No. 3796/2004 directing re-consideration of the appeal. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P14 order was passed confirming W.P(C) No. 13653 of 2007 -: 2 :- additional demand for energy charges in Ext.P2 and reducing penal charges under condition No. 42(d) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy to two times instead of three times. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P15 demand is also raised. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Call for the records leading up to Exts. P14 and P15 from the respondents and quash Exts. P2, P14 and P15 by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order;
B. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner's Hotel as proposed in Ext.P15."
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the penal charges are reduced to 1 = times instead of two times.
2. I passed the following interim order on 12.6.2012:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the demand is reduced to 1.5 times, instead of 2 times. The learned standing counsel for the Board shall get instructions from the respondents as to whether the respondents are agreeable to the said course of action."
The learned standing counsel for the Board submits that a decision in the matter cannot be taken immediately without taking appropriate legal advice and obtaining orders from the higher authorities, which would take time. W.P(C) No. 13653 of 2007 -: 3 :-
3. I have considered the matter.
4. It is a fact that in Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the maximum penal charges leviable is only 1.5 times. Although the subject matter of this writ petition was prior to the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, insofar as there is no allegation of theft of electrical energy, I am of opinion that the request of the petitioner can be granted on equitable grounds.
5. Accordingly, Exts. P14 and P15 are quashed to the extent of levying penal charges at twice the short collected charges. The respondents are directed to fix the penal charges payable at 1.5 times instead of two times. Fresh bill and demand notice shall be issued by the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/