IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 requires actual consumption beyond authorized load; mere extension of load without use does not qualify.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL.

2. The petitioner has put to challenge the final assessment order dated 21.07.2016 and the final electricity assessment bill dated 21.07.2016, by which it was found that the total connected load of 839.25 was detected against the authorized load of 418 KW in respect of the petitioner’s Tea Factory. Hence it was saddled with the bill amounting to Rs.27,37,920/-. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of plantation, manufacture and sale of tea. The authorized connected electricity load in the petitioner’s tea estate is 418 KW, which is equivalent to 491.76 KVA. The transformer capacity of the tea estate is 500 KVA. Further, though the petitioner’s connected load was 418 KW, the petitioner’s contract related demand for consumption of electricity was limited to 320 KVA.

3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner purchased various equipments but did not utilise the same, as the petitioner had applied for release of additional electricity load. However, instead of the APDCL according necessary approval for release of the additional load, APDCL officials visited the petitioner’s tea estate for routine checking, wherein they noticed installation of various purchased machineries/equipments.

4. Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the APDCL officials, on seeing the equipments/machineries, straightway came to the conclusion that the petitioner had exceeded its authorized connected load, without verifying as to whether the said machineries were connected with the APDCL distribution mains. He submits that the officials thereafter prepared a Checking Report, showing the total connected load of the petitioner’s installation at 839.25 KW, instead of the actual connected load of 418 KW, thereby alleging that the petitioner had exceeded the connected load by 422 KW. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Inspection Report is absolutely silent as to whether the load detected was the meter connected load.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of Electricity Bill dated 11.07.2016 which is for the billing period from 01.06.2016 to 30.06.2016, the meter reading details showed that the Recorded Demand (RD) KVA was 0.28 which was less than the Maximum Demand (MD) KVA and Billing Demand (BD) KVA, which was 283 & 320 KVA respectively. He accordingly submits that when the electricity bill shows that there has been no use of electricity beyond the contracted demand of 320 KVA, there was no occasion for the APDCL to have come to a finding that the petitioner was in unauthorized use of electricity, beyond the petitioner’s connected load. He submits that the extension of load simpliciter, without there being any actual use of electricity beyond the contract related demand or connected load, does not amount to unauthorized use of electricity, within the meaning of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

6. Mr. S.K. Kejriwal submits that in terms of Clause (e) of HT Category VII – Oil and Coal of Schedule of Tariff issued by the APDCL w.e.f. 10.07.2017, if the Recorded Demand is higher than the Contracted Demand in a month, then fixed charge based on Contracted Demand can be levied, at three times the normal rate, for the portion of demand exceeding the Contracted Demand. He submits that in the present case, the Recorded Demand and the Contracted Demand is the same which is 320 KVA. As such, the electricity consumption did not exceed the connected load. He also submits that as there was no consumption of electricity in excess of the sanction/connected load, there was no unauthorized use of electricity in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer & Another vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108.

7. The learned counsel for th