J U D G M E N T

Abdul Rehim, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31474/2013 is the appellant herein, challenging dismissal of the writ petition through judgment dated 14th August, 2019. The respondents are the respondents in the writ petition.

2. A penal assessment under 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003(for short, 'the Act') was finalized against the writ petitioner, with respect to an industrial connection provided to him, based on an inspection conducted at his premises on 15.11.2008, alleging usage of unauthorized additional load. The provisional assessment issued demanding payment of a total sum of `

3,34,700/-, was confirmed through the final order issued, which was challenged in a statutory appeal filed under Section 127 of the Act. On dismissal of the appeal as time barred, the writ petitioner took up the matter before this court in W.P.(C) No.21674/2009. This court passed an interim order in W.P.(C) 21674/2009 directing reconnection of the supply, presumably because the petitioner has already remitted 50% of the amount assessed, to satisfy the pre-requisite condition for filing of the statutory appeal. Consequent to the interim order, supply was reconnected to the establishment of the petitioner on 06.09.2009. The said writ petition was disposed of only on 04.06.2012. The assessment was quashed and the assessing authority was directed to make a fresh assessment. Subsequently the assessing authority had finalised the assessment afresh, after complying with the procedure contemplated under Section 126 of the Act. The final order was passed on 28.11.2012, directing payment of the very same amount of penalty. Since the writ petitioner had failed to remit the balance amount, supply was again disconnected. It is stated that, subsequent to the disconnection, the writ petitioner had already remitted the balance amount due under the assessment confirmed on 28.11.2012. Thereafter the petitioner was served with fresh demands as per Exts.P3, P4 and P5, for payment of penalty of alleging continued usage of the unauthorized additional load, for the periods from 05.12.2008 to 9/2013. The above said demands were under challenge in the writ petition.

3. Contention of the writ petitioner was that, at the time when the electricity supply was restored based on the interim order of this court dated 6.9.2009, passed in W.P.(C) No.21674/2009, the additional load connected was already removed. Therefore it is contended that, the continued penal assessment imposed by resorting to Regulation 51(2) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 is illegal. Further contention raised is that the said assessment was made without following the procedure contemplated under Section 126 of the Act.

4. The respondents had filed counter affidavit contending that, the impugned assessments were made under Section 126 of the Act and therefore the challenge raised in the writ petition cannot be sustained. Further it is contended that, as per Regulation 51(2) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, the Board is entitled to realise the penalty for the unauthorized additional load, till the unauthorized additional load is removed or regularized. Therefore it is contended that, the impugned assessments are made well within the powers vested on the respondents. According to the respondents, at the time when the reconnection was provided in compliance with the interim order issued by this court in W.P.(C) No.21674/2009, the writ petitioner had failed to remove the unauthorized additional load. Therefore the impugned assessments are made strictly in accordance with Regulation 51(2) of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, is the contention. It is pointed out that the writ petitioner had never intimated the Board that the additional load was removed or regularized. Therefore the continued imposition of penalty, made through Exts.P3 to P5 are legally sustainable. The writ petition