C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.@mdashAssessment of penalty finalised against the petitioner u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was confirmed in appeal by Ext. P2 order of the 2nd respondent. Ext. P3 is the consequential demand issued. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P2 and P3 in this writ petition. Eventhough various grounds are raised assailing the imposition of penalty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is limiting the challenge only on the ground that, penalty imposed at LT VIII tariff alleging unauthorised extension is not sustainable.
2. This Court in J.D.T. Islam Orphanage Committee v. The Assistant Engineer, KSEB and Others 2007 (3) KHC 6 : 2007 (3) KLT 388 held that, considering Regulation 42(d) of the erstwhile ''Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy'', levy of charges under LT VIII tariff for unauthorised extensions cannot be sustained. Billing at a penal rate on the basis of connected load on dally basis is impermissible in case of detection of unauthorised extension. It is observed that, LT VIII tariff is meant for temporary extensions authorised to be taken from the consumer''s premises. There the tariff is computed on fixed charge per KWA connected load, per day, in addition to application fee and testing fee. Under such temporary extensions there is no measurement of the quantity of energy by a separate meter. Under authorised temporary extensions the quantity of consumption is recorded in the meter installed at the main premises itself. This Court found that the expression, ''respective tariff mentioned under Regulation 42(d) denotes only the tariff at which the quantity of supply at the main premises is billed. The said judgment was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench.
3. This Court in the decision in
4. It is evident that, penalty was imposed under LT VIII tariff on the allegation of unauthorised extension detected at the time of inspection. Going by Exts. P2 and P3 it is evident that 3 KW which pertains to the unauthorised extension was charged on daily rent basis at Rs. 50/- per day for a period of one year at 2 times. Such a penalization is not sustainable going by the settled legal position. The respondents are entitled only to levy penalty at two times of the fixed charges and the energy charges on the proportionate consumption under the unauthorised additional load detected, at the tariff applicable for the purpose for which the energy is supplied at the premises.
5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Exts. P2 and P3 are hereby quashed to the extent it assessed penalty under LT VIII tariff. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue revised bill in accordance with the directions contained herein above, re-computing the penalty. Penalty on fixed charges should be levied for the additional load of 3 KW at two times for the previous periods as computed in the assessment, at the rate applicable on the date of detection. Penalty on current charges should also be levied on proportionate consumption on the additional load of 3 KW for the same period at the rate applicable on that date, at one time. A revised demand shall be issued in this regard within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any further amount is due on the basis of the recalculation, the petitioner shall be given one month''s time for payment. If the amount already remitted is found as excess, the same shall be adjusted/refunded.
