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 penal invoice,
(ii) Declare that the respondents are not entitled to impose penalty by applying LT III B tariff to the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorised extension,
(iii) Pass such other orders which this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, in connection with the construction of Villas by the petitioner, who is a builder, temporary connection was obtained under concerned tariff. Alleging that unauthorised use of energy was detected in the course of inspection conducted on 29.10.2014 as disclosed from Ext.P1 Mahazar, Ext.P2 bill was issued to the petitioner, demanding a sum of Rs.37,01,100/- (Rupees Thirty seven lakhs one thousand and one hundred only). The petitioner filed Ext.P3 statement of objections dated 04.11.2014. However, without any regard to the actual facts and figures, Ext.P4 final invoice was W.P.(C) No.34069 of 2014 2 issued to the petitioner, which is under challenge.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have quantified the liability at the tariff applicable to the 'temporary connection', that too on “per day, per K.W.” basis, which is contrary to the dictum laid down by this Court as per the decision reported in 2007 (3) KLT 388 (J.D.T. Islam
Orphanage Committee Vs. Assistant Engineer, KSEB). Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the subsequent decision of this Court in W.A. No.607 of 2008, which was followed with 2013 (1) KLT 595 (Jomy Thomas
Manjooran Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board). The learned counsel points out that the maximum liability, if a correct calculation is effected, could only be somewhere around Rs.3,53,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty three thousand only).
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel as well.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the computation effected by the concerned respondent has necessarily to be terms of the law declared by this Court as per the decisions cited supra. Going by the facts and figures and materials on record, this Court finds that reconsideration of the W.P.(C) No.34069 of 2014 3 matter is necessary.
5. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to recompute the liability with notice of hearing to the petitioner, also in the light of the law declared by this Court as per the judgments aforesaid. The said process 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, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rupees 'Four lakhs' within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 3rd respondent, for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp