By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President Petitioners case is as follows: The complainant is the daughter of Late Alath Aravindaksha Menon who was the actual consumer of the opposite party with agricultural connection No. 1192. At present, the complainant is the beneficiary and consumer of agricultural connection No.1192. The complainant is regularly paying all bills till date. 2. On 16/12/04 without any notice connection was disconnected. On enquiry the petitioner was handed over a penal bill for Rs.32,670/-. The bill is dated on 22/12/04 and the disconnection was on 6//1/05. There is no notice to this petitioner about the inspection conducted on 18/12/04. The issuance of a penal bill of this nature is illegal. There are valuable crops like banana, coconut, arecanut and other crops which needs constant irrigation. Hence this complaint. 3.Counter of Respondent 1 and 2 in brief is as given: The connection is in the name of one Aravindaksha Menon and it was exempted from paying charges. Petitioner is not the registered consumer. The inspection conducted on 16/12/04 revealed that the petitioner is doing unauthorized use of electricity by way of theft. The electricity from agricultural connection is used to conduct the business of cable T.V. Suppressing these facts petitioner has filed this O.P. Petitioner is liable to pay the bill amount. After the payment of the impugned bill KSEB is ready to restore the connection. Hence dismiss the complaint. 4.Respondent 2 is declared exparte. 5.The points for consideration are : 1)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get an injunction as prayed ? 2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get reconnection as prayed ? 3)Whether the alleged demand notice is illegal? 4)Reliefs and costs? 6. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P5 and R1 to R3. No other evidence. 7. All the points are considered together. As per the petition the electric supply to consumer No.1192 was disconnected without any notice and on enquiry a penal bill was issued. The issuance of a penal bill of this nature is illegal and unjustifiable. Therefore liable to be declared void. 8. As per Ext. R1, the site mahazar from the consumer No.1192, electricity is using unauthorisedly for conducting a cable T.V. work. There is no electricity connection in the building where the Cable TV work was conducted. As per the Anti Power Theft Squad inspection report, it was seen that M/s. J.J.Satvision cable TV is functioning by way of looping from Consumer No.1192 direct tapping from service wire. The connection of consumer No.1192 being exempted from paying charges, the petitioner need not pay from his pocket. 9. On the basis of the inspection, the connection to the consumer No.1192 is disconnected. As per the conditions of supply of electrical energy,, the Board has the right to disconnect the supply without any notice in case of theft of energy, the Board has the right to disconnect the supply without any notice in case of theft of energy. 10.The basis of penal bill is also explained in the version filed by the Board. In the bill itself it is explained. The quantum of electricity used is also stated. This is a clear case falling under Section 135 of Electricity Act. All the points are found against the petitioner. 11.Since the petitioner consumed the electricity unauthorisedly she is not entitled to get the injunction sought. She is liable to pay the amount shown in the penal bill. 12. In the result, petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to pay the amount shown in Ext. P1 demand notice by three equal monthly instalments. The 1st instalment shall pay on or before 30/7/08. If the payment is not done on the specified date the existing restored connection can be disconnected by the Board. No order as to cost and compensation . Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 30th day of June 2008.
