A short question, but of some significance, arises in this writ petition in connection with the powers and jurisdiction vested with the Electricity Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2013 and the attendant Rules and Regulations.

2. The Appellate Authority in this case, appears apparently to amerce the petitioner in an appeal filed by him, by re-fixing a larger duration during which unauthorised load was detected in his premises, even though in the Final Assessment and demand made by the competent Authority of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short) this period was much shorter. The petitioner asserts that without the KSEB challenging the shorter duration fixed in the final demand, the Appellate Authority was in error in modifying it, and that too in an appeal filed by him, wherein he had impugned the demand on various other grounds.

3. The petitioner thus predicates that the Appellate Authority has exceeded its powers and has acted unfairly in foraying into areas over which its jurisdiction had not been invoked.

4. To assess the tenability of these contentions, a quick look into the factual factors becomes first necessary.

5. The petitioner, who claims to be the Managing Partner of a Firm, which is a consumer of a High Tension Consumer Electric supply, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order of the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority. According to him, the said order suffers from the vice of having been issued without proper application of mind and without adverting to the applicable statutory provisions.

6. The compendious facts that are necessary for my consideration, is that a Firm by name M/s. Hycount Plastics and Chemicals, of which the petitioner is stated to be the Managing Partner, enjoys High Tension Electric Supply under HT 1A Industrial Tariff with a contract demand of 155kVA and a sanctioned load of 124kW. While so, on 25.02.2017, the Anti-power Theft Squad (ATPS for short) Kollam Unit of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short), conducted a raid on the premises of the petitioner's firm, to detect that there was an additional unauthorized load of 290kW over and above the sanctioned load of 124kW. On such basis, a provisional assessment demand was made, which was, thereafter, reduced marginally in the final assessment order.

7. Even though the afore mentioned final assessment order was not challenged by the KSEB by filing a writ petition before this Court at that time, the petitioner opted to challenge it before the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority (hereinafter “Appellate Authority” for brevity) on various grounds; but primarily that his Unit is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 153(15) of the Electricity Supply Code 2014, which provides that “unauthorised additional load in the same premises under the same tariff shall not be reckoned as unauthorized use of electricity except in the case of consumer billed on the basis of connected load.” This appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority, through Ext.P8 order, setting aside the final assessment order of the KSEB; but, thereafter, permitting it to issue a fresh bill from December 2014, even though as per the impugned demand, the petitioner had been billed only for a period of 12 months prior to 25.02.2017, being the date of inspection by the APTS. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P8 order is improper, illegal and issued in excess of the powers of the Appellate Authority.

8. I have heard Sri.Johnson Gomes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB.

9. As is clear from Ext.P8, which is the order impugned before me, the Appellate Authority had considered each of the contentions of the petitioner, afore narrated and has answered them specifically in the said order. On the question of the application of Regulation 153(15) of the Supply Code the Appellate Authority found that these issues have bee