Ext.P5 order, by which Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent is dismissed, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is running a hotel and the same is having an LT VII A service connection provided by the Election Section, Vizhinjam, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner alleges that his premises were inspected by APTS Unit, who found that there was theft of energy. Proceedings were initiated as per Clause 43 of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and a penal bill for ₹1,12,766/- was issued. The petitioner paid the entire amount under protest and got the supply restored. His appeal petition filed before the 2nd respondent was dismissed by the impugned order. It is in this context, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. The respondent Board has filed a detailed statement refuting all the contentions in the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board.
5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after the detection of alleged theft of energy and fresh sealing of the CT compartment by the respondent Board, the average electricity consumption was same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this would point out that there was no theft of energy. This contention was taken up before the appellate authority, which rejected the same on the ground that the consumption of the petitioner was below the average than a hotel consumer having similar connected load.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, inviting my attention to the relevant paragraph of the statement filed by them, submitted that the energy meter was under lock and key of the hotel staff and it was the hotel staff, who opened the door to the room when the inspection was conducted. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the defect detected is mentioned in the mahazar. It was the CT compartment of the meter that was seen tampered; according to the respondent Board. In addition to that, the actual theft was done by cutting the CT wire to one of the phases of the energy meter preventing recording of energy consumed through that phase. According to the respondent Board, this cannot happen accidentally and it is a deliberate action and hence, it is a convincing proof of theft of energy. Since it was detected that one phase of the meter was not recording the true consumption due to the tampering on the CT circuit wire, the respondent Board adopted a scientific method by calculating the energy, which is said to be stolen. According to them, the energy consumed by tampering would be 50% of the recorded energy. Therefore, according to them, the bill was issued in accordance with Clause 43 of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. It was also pointed out that the mahazar was prepared in the presence of one of the partners of the hotel, who was present at the time of inspection. He has acknowledged the scene mahazar.
On a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, it cannot be said that there was any high-handed action on the part of the respondent Board. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely no reason for an interference with the appellate order, which is impugned.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
bka/-
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE