KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. SRI.M.MOHAMMED HAJI
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Electricity Act, 2003 s. 26(6)
Judgment
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.----------------------------------------------R. P. No. 170 OF 2007INO.P. No. 26716 OF 2001 ----------------------------------------------Dated 7th day of September, 2007.
O R D E RThis is a petition to review the judgment dated 22.03.2006in O.P.No.26716/01. The issue pertains to the steps taken by thereview petitioners for realising proportionate energy charges on account of the alleged unauthorised load. Following the DivisionBench judgment in W.A. 1231/03, this Court held that there shall not be penalty by way of proportionate energy charges and 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 of maximum penalty and the matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. I am afraid, the contention cannot be appreciated. Admittedly, there is no prescribed norm or guidelines in such situations to be examined on a case to case basis. That would only pave way to unhealthy situations of arbitrariness. Thatapart, since the energy charges can be levied only for the measured energy, whether there is any scope at all for such R.P.170/072examination is yet another issue, though Sri. Karunakarancontended that it is not the energy charges that is levied, but the penalty. If as a matter of fact it is the penalty that is levied, there is no purpose in using the expression 'proportionate energycharges'. Once the expression used is 'proportionate energycharges', that would only indicate the quantum of energy that could have been consumed by such installation using the said additional load, which is against the spirit of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, since irrespective of the connected load, the energy consumed has already been properly measured and billed. In fact the Board itself in the case of commercial consumers has admitted and applied the above principle, as noted in the writ appeal judgment. In that view of the matter, there is nothing on merits to review the judgment. The review petition is hence dismissed.KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.smp
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 07 Sep 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.