Defendants 1 and 2 (namely Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Major Section, Koyilandi and the Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram) in O.S.No.167 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Koyilandi are the appellants in this appeal. The said suit, instituted by the respondent herein, was one for a declaration that Ext.A6 demand notice dated 25.8.1994 is null and void and not legally enforcible and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing payment under the said demand notice.

2. The fact that the plaintiff installed a 1 HP electric motor with pump set in his house was admitted. The main contention raised by the plaintiff was that by installing the pump set he was not committing breach of any of the provisions of law or the Regulations issued by the Kerala Electricity Board (KSEB for short). The KSEB on the other hand contended that by installing the pump set, the plaintiff was increasing the sanctioned connected load of 400 watts thereby attracting the penalty under Clause 42(d) of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy (" Regulations" for short) issued by the KSEB in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that since the pump set installed by the plaintiff, although without permission, was used for domestic purpose only, Clause 42(d) of the Regulations was not attracted. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, the said provision would be attracted only if the consumer exceeded the contracted load for a purpose different from the specific purpose contemplated under the contract for that tarif. Accordingly, the suit was decreed granting the declaration as well as injunction prayed for. Hence this appeal.

4. After hearing both sides, I do not think that the view taken by the court below is sustainable. The specific case of the defendants is that by installing the 1 HP pump-set without the permission of the KSEB and without notice under Clause 24 of the Regulations, the installation itself was unauthorised. According to the KSEB, the authorised load for the plaintiff's premises was only 400 watts.

5. If Clause 42(d) of the Regulations is attracted, then there is no dispute that the plaintiff will be treated as having committed misuse of energy and liable to be billed at three times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous six months from the date of detection of the misuse as provided under Clause 42(d) of the Regulations. Admittedly, the KSEB has billed the plaintiff at the above rate for a period of two years which is not sanctioned by the said Clause 42(d).

6. Ext.B12 is a true copy of the relevant page of the Consumer's Personal Deposit Register pertaining to the plaintiff. It shows that a single phase connection to the plaintiff's house was given on 21.5.1977 with Consumer No.902 under Tariff I(a). It also shows that connected load was 400 watts. The said load of 400 watts was fixed after taking into account 6 light points and 2 plug points only. Clause 24 of the Regulations reads as follows:-

"Should the consumer, at any time after the supply of energy has been commenced, desire to increase the number of wattage or capacity of lights, fans or motors etc., on his premises on a temporary or permanent basis or in any way alter the position of his wiring therein, notice thereof must be sent by the consumer in writing to the Board whose representative will call and inspect the alteration and, if necessary change meters and fuses and alter the service line. For this purpose if a single phase service line is to be converted to three phase or change of size of conductor to meet increased maximum demand is necessitated, the work shall be done at the cost of consumer on deposit work basis. A test report signed by a licensed wiring contractor should also be produced by the co