Judgment :- K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. In this O.P, the challenge is against Ext.P10 order passed by the second respondent refusing to refund Rs.8103/- with interest. 2. Petitioner is the owner of a small-scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of ice blocks. The unit was established in 1992 and the commercial production started from 3.9.1992. He was entitled to electrical energy tariff as per Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent, electricity board. Since there was acute shortage of electrical energy, the first respondent issued Ext.P3 notice dated 25.3.1997, introducing 50% power cut to industrial consumers using 10 Kw of power and above with effect from 18.3.1997 and accordingly fixed the monthly quota of the petitioner from March 1997 at 12,625(P) plus 126(L)Kw with penal consequences. 3. Subsequently Ext.P6 notice dated 17.6.97 was issued by the first respondent to the petitioner introducing 75% power cut to industrial consumers using 10Kw of power and above with effect from 17.6.1997. As per Ext.P6, the weekly quota of the petitioner is fixed as 1425 plus 14(light)Kwh. It is also directed that the daily consumption shall not exceed l/7th of the weekly quota. Ext.P6 contained penal provisions for consumption of excess energy. The respondents issued Ext.P4 bill for the month of June 1997 for Rs.14,814/- being energy charges for the total energy consumption of 9918 units. In Ext.P4, penal charges @ Rs. 2.70 per unit for 3605 units out of the total energy of 9918 units consumed for the month of June 1997 is levied. The levy of penal charges @ 2.70 per unit for 3605 units out of 9918 units which was less than the monthly quota fixed for the month of June 1997 by the respondents is challenged by the petitioner before the Executive Engineer, second respondent herein. He also filed 0.P. 12930 of 1997 and this court passed Ext.P9 judgment dated 9.11.2001 directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P4 notice in the light of the contentions of the parties and observations made in that judgment, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. Accordingly the second respondent passed Ext.P10 order upholding the penal charges in Ext.P4 bill. 4. Accordingly the second respondent passed Ext.P10 order upholding the penal charges in Ext.P4 bill. 4. In Ext.P10, the second respondent has held that the quota allotted for 2 weeks was 6313 units for which 50 paise per unit was assessed since the petitioner conies under S.S.I unit and the excess over quota was assessed at Rs.2.70 per unit and the excess over quota assessed at higher rate is in order. It is further observed that "Assessment made for the consumption of excess over weekly quota will not be withdrawn. It may be true that the weekly quota fixed for the petitioner is insufficient even for 2 days. But the Board cannot impose different rates according to the nature of implementation of power cut. Since the power situation was worsening day by day during the period in question, board had to take stringent steps to reduce power consumption". 5. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner to assess the entire energy consumption at the concessional rate of 50 paise per unit and the imposition of penal charge at Rs.2.70 per unit for 3605 units is absolutely illegal and contrary to the directions of this court Made in Ext.P9 judgment. In paragraph 6 of Ext.P9 judgment, this court has observed as follows:- " I find some merit on the contention of the petitioner that by Ext.P6 notice dated 17.6.97 the consumption already made prior to the date of notice cannot be subjected to the restriction of weekly quota. The petitioner hasfiled Ext.P9 appeal challenging Ext.P4 bill. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P9 appeal taking into account the contentions of the petitioner and also the observations in this judgment. Though Ext.P9 appeal was filed as early as on 23.7.97, neither side has brought to my notice about the disposal of the appeal". 6. It is clear from Ext.P10 order passed by the second respondent that he has not taken into consideration, the above observation made by this court regarding the contentions raised by the petitioner. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner being a consumer for the S.S.I unit is entitled to tariff at 50 paise per unit. 6. It is clear from Ext.P10 order passed by the second respondent that he has not taken into consideration, the above observation made by this court regarding the contentions raised by the petitioner. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner being a consumer for the S.S.I unit is entitled to tariff at 50 paise per unit. 8.The contention of the respondents is that by introducing power cut, the intention of the first respondent board was to restrict and regulate the use of energy provided as per the quota spread over for the entire month. But the petitioner consumed the entire quota allotted for the month within few days which is contrary to the intended restriction and regulation of energy as per the power cut introduced by the respondents. The above contention raised by the respondents is devoid of any merits. It is clear from Ext.P3 notice dated 25.3.97 that only a monthly quota is stipulated after introducing 50% power cut to consumers like the petitioner from the month of March 1997. Nothing is stated or indicated in Ext.P3 that the quota of energy stipulated per month for the petitioner should be consumed by spreading over the entire month in a uniform manner. The petitioner's case is that since for production of ice cubes all the machineries installed had to be worked together, he could work the unit only for few days in a month by consuming the entire quota of energy allotted to him for that particular month and he never exceeded the total quota fixed for him in any particular month. Therefore according to him, he is liable to be charged only at 50 paise per unit and the levy of penal charges for a portion of the energy consumed by him within the monthly quota is absolutely illegal. 9. It is pertinent to note that in Ext.P6 notice issued by the respondents dated 17.6.1997, introducing 75% power cut it is specifically stated that the weekly quota is fixed at a particular rate and the daily consumption should not exceed 1/7 of the weekly quota. It is clear from Ext.P6 that at the time of issuance of that notice, the intention of the respondents is manifest that the weekly quota of energy stipulated therein should be consumed only on average daily basis and the consumer is not entitled to exceed 1/7th of the weekly quota per day. It is clear from Ext.P6 that at the time of issuance of that notice, the intention of the respondents is manifest that the weekly quota of energy stipulated therein should be consumed only on average daily basis and the consumer is not entitled to exceed 1/7th of the weekly quota per day. There is absolutely no such stipulation either express or implied in Ext.P3 notice issued by the respondents imposing 50% power cut from March 1997 onwards. By careful reading of Ext.P3, such an intention to make the monthly quota spread over the entire month with the daily available consumption cannot be presumed to be intended by the respondents. It may be that long after issuance of Ext.P3 and while issuing Ext.P6 notice on introduction of 75% power cut, the respondents might have realised the necessity to direct the consumers to consume energy on an average basis per day, of the weekly quota in order to facilitate equal and even distribution of energy to all consumers. But due to the mere fact that such a stipulation is made by the respondents in a subsequent notice issued by them long after Ext.P3 notice issued by them it cannot be contended that the respondents had intended in Ext.P3 notice also that the monthly quota of energy should be consumed by the consumers in an average manner on an average basis per day. Therefore the levy of penal charges at Rs. 2.70 per unit for 3605 units consumed by the petitioner for the month of June 1967 is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in this case. 10. It is settled law that penalty can be imposed only prospectively and not retrospectively. Therefore on the basis of Ext.P6 notice issued by the respondents on 17.6.97, the petitioner cannot be subjected to penal charges for the energy consumed by him within the monthly quota only on the ground that he consumed the energy within a few days without making it spread over for the entire month. Hence this 0.P is allowed, Ext.P4 bill and Ext.P10 order to the extent they levied penal charges at the rate of Rs.2.70 per unit for 3605 units is set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.8103/- collected from the petitioner as penal charges to the petitioner within two weeks from this date with interest @ 9% per annum from this date till payment.