THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER v. M/S.DHANYA TOURIST HOME
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Electricity Act, 2003 s. 26(6)
Judgment
RP 1077/061KURIAN JOSEPH, J.----------------------------------------------R.P.No.1077 of 2006inO.P.No.10638 of 2000 ----------------------------------------------Dated 19th October, 2007.
O R D E RThis is a petition to review the judgment dated27.1.2006 in O.P.No.10638/2000. The issue pertains to the stepstaken by the review petitioners for realizing proportionate energycharges on account of the alleged unauthorised load. Followingthe Division Bench judgment in W.A.1231/03, this Court held thatthere shall not be penalty by way of proportionate energy chargesand that the penalty should be limited to the fixed charges.2. Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that the Division Bench only prohibited the levy ofmaximum penalty and the matter has to be decided on a case tocase basis. I am afraid, the contention cannot be appreciated. Admittedly, there is no prescribed norm or guidelines in suchsituations to be examined on a case to case basis. That wouldonly pave way to unhealthy situations of arbitrariness. Thatapart, since the energy charges can be levied only for the RP 1077/062measured energy, whether there is any scope at all for suchexamination is yet another issue, though Sri. Karunakarancontended that it is not the energy charges that is levied, but thepenalty. If as a matter of fact it is the penalty that is levied, thereis no purpose in using the expression 'proportionate energycharges'. Once the expression used is 'proportionate energycharges', that would only indicate the quantum of energy thatcould have been consumed by such installation using the saidadditional load, which is against the spirit of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, since irrespective of the connectedload, the energy consumed has already been properly measuredand billed. In fact the Board itself in the case of commercialconsumers has admitted and applied the above principle, asnoted in the writ appeal judgment. In that view of the matter, there is nothing on merits to review the judgment. The reviewpetition is hence dismissed.KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.tgs
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 26(6).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 19 Oct 2007. The bench was KURIAN JOSEPH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.