JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is a high tension consumer. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in penalising the petitioner for not noticing that the capacitors installed by her were faulty. The Anti Power Theft Squad that conducted an inspection of the petitioner’s premises had noticed that the petitioner’s capacitors were faulty. Therefore, as per Ext.P3 order, penalty was levied on the petitioner. The reason stated for levying the penalty was that though the petitioner has maintained a power factor of 0.90 during the relevant period, the power factor was found to be 0.79 during April 2005, 0.37 during May 2005 and 0.86 during June 2005 respectively. Therefore, a bill was issued levying penalty for the reduced power factor by invoice dated 6.6.2005. Though the petitioner paid the initial amount, later on only the amount reduced by the amount of penalty was paid. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, no overt act on the part of the petitioner has either been alleged or detected, as the reason for the reduction in the power factor that was noticed. Admittedly, the reason was that the capacitors were defective. It is true that the petitioner had not noticed the defect for which the petitioner cannot be found fault with or penalised. Reliance is placed on Ext.P4 Board order to contend that the fact that the capacitors were faulty ought to have been brought to the notice of the petitioner and the penalty should have been levied only if the defects were not remedied. 3. Adv. P.K. Radhika appears for the respondents. A counter affidavit has also been filed. The contention of the counsel is that the Board order Ext.P4 applies to cases where no capacitors have been installed. Since the petitioner had installed capacitors and the defect noted was that they were faulty, it is contended that the said Board order cannot help the petitioner. 4. Heard. It has been held by this Court in Ahammed Koya v. KSEB (2003 KHC 1254) that the respondents have a duty to issue a notice to the consumer pointing out that an installation of his was defective wherever such a defect is detected. Only if the defect is not remedied is the Kerala State Electricity Board (‘Board’ for short) entitled to levy penalty. Only if the defect is not remedied is the Kerala State Electricity Board (‘Board’ for short) entitled to levy penalty. Ext.P4 Board order specifically provides that, notice of two weeks is necessary to be issued before penalty could be levied on a consumer alleging that an installation was not properly functioning. Admittedly, in this case, no notice was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. 5. For the above reasons the petitioner is entitled to succeed. This writ petition is therefore allowed. Exts.P3 and P7 are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to refund of any amount paid as penalty pursuant to the impugned proceedings or for adjustment of the said amount towards future payments due from him.