Back
2019 Supreme(Ker) 99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Muhammed Ali Rawther M. - Petitioners
Versus
The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission K.P.F.C. Bhavanam - Respondents
WP(C).No. 33422 of 2014, 13138 of 2015, 19868, 21864, 25552 of 2018, 23420 of 2016
Decided On : 06-02-2019
For the Petitioners: Advs. Sri. Raju Joseph (Sr.), Sri. K.T. Poulose (Koratty).
For the Respondents: Advs. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan (Sr.), Sri. T.G. Rajendran, Sri. S. Sujin, Sri. Sudheer Ganesh Kumar-SC, Sri. A. Arunkumar-SC, Sri. Vipin. P. Vaghese-SC, Smt. Rekha C. Nair-Sr. GP.
IMPORTANT POINTS :• Under Section 142 of the ElectricityAct, the Regulatory Commission can punish 'any person' who acts in violation of its directions.
• Under the stipulations of Regulation 95(4)(c) of the Supply Code, the KSEB is obligated to shift an electric line or electric plant if the consumer remits the labour charges alone required for such shifting, but they are expressly prohibited from charging the expenses or costs for the materials and consumables required for such purpose.
Headnote:Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 - Regulation 95(4)(c) - The KSEB is obligated to shift an electric line or electric plant if the consumer remits the labour charges alone required for such shifting, but they are expressly prohibited from charging the expenses or costs for the materials and consumables required for such purpose. The Electricity Act,2003 -Section 50 and 181- Asserts that even a glance through the provisions of these Sections would show that they would obtain no competence or jurisdiction to exempt any consumer from payment of the expenses for the various services being made available to them by the KSEB and therefore, that the impugned inhibition in 95 of the Supply Code is untenable and statutorily impermissible- Section 142 - The Regulatory Commission can punish 'any person' who acts in violation of its directions.
Statement of facts :
From the plexus of the large volume of pleadings, materials and records available on the files of these cases, emerges a singular question as to whether the provisions in the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Supply Code' for short), inhibiting the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. ('KSEB' for short), to charge for the consumables and the materials required for shifting of an electric line or electric plant; though allowing them to charge the actual labour charges, is impermissible or illegal. Under the stipulations of Regulation 95(4)(c) of the Supply Code, the KSEB is obligated to shift an electric line or electric plant if the consumer remits the labour charges alone required for such shifting, but they are expressly prohibited from charging the expenses or costs for the materials and consumables required for such purpose.In the afore cases except W.P.(C)No.21864 of 2018, the Electricity Board or its Authorities are the petitioners; wherein they challenge this Regulation on several grounds but primarily that they have been made by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission in excess of their jurisdiction, as vested in them by the Electricity Act, 2003.
Finding of the court :
Permit the second respondent to make a representation to the Chief Engineer of the KSEB detailing all his objections against the bill in question, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the said authority will consider it, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the second respondent as also to the concerned officer of the KSEB and issue an apposite order, as expeditiously as possible but not later than one month thereafter-
Result : Quash Exhibits P7, P17 to P20 and P22 in W.P.(C)No.13138/2015.
1. From the plexus of the large volume of pleadings, materials and records available on the files of these cases, emerges a singular question as to whether the provisions in the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Supply Code' for short), inhibiting the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. ('KSEB' for short), to charge for the consumables and the materials required for shifting of an electric line or electric plant; though allowing them to charge the actual labour charges, is impermissible or illegal.
2. Under the stipulations of Regulation 95(4)(c) of the Supply Code, the KSEB is obligated to shift an electric line or electric plant if the consumer remits the labour charges alone required for such shifting, but they are expressly prohibited from charging the expenses or costs for the materials and consumables required for such purpose.
3. In the afore cases except W.P.(C)No.21864 of 2018, the Electricity Board or its Authorities are the petitioners; wherein they challenge this Regulation on several grounds but primarily that they have been made by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission' for short) in excess of their jurisdiction, as vested in them by the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
4. I have heard Sri.Raju Joseph, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.Georgekutty Mathew appearing for the KSEB in W.P.(C)No.13138 of 2015, W.P.(C)No.23420 of 2016 and W.P. (C)No.25552 of 2018; Sri.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the KSEB in W.P.(C)No.19868 of 2018; Sri.A.V.James, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21864 of 2018 and Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri.Vishnu.J, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.23420 of 2016; Sri.Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the KSEB appearing for the KSEB in W.P. (C)No.21864 of 2018; Sri.K.K.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.19868 of 2018; Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in W.P.(C)No.13138 of 2015; Sri.Vipin.P. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission in all these cases and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and its functionaries.
5. Sri.Raju Joseph, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the KSEB in some of these matters, commenced his submissions by saying that the Supply Code has been brought into force by the Commission only under the provisions of Section 50 and 181 of the Electricity Act and asserts that even a glance through the provisions of these Sections would show that they would obtain no competence or jurisdiction to exempt any consumer from payment of the expenses for the various services being made available to them by the KSEB and therefore, that the impugned inhibition in 95 of the Supply Code is untenable and statutorily impermissible.
6. Sri.Raju Joseph, thereafter, draws my attention to the Central Electricity Authority Safety Regulation 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Safety Regulations' for short) and in particular to Regulation 63 thereof, to show that when a consumer seeks the change of alignment of an overhead electric line, subsequent to its erection, for the purpose of allowing him to carry on further construction or for such other purposes, he is obligated, under those Regulations, to remit the entire cost, both for the material and the labour required; and therefore, that there is no rational basis as to why the Regulatory Commission should have, in the Supply Code, exempted customers from doing so when they apply for change of alignment of electric line for their own benefit.
7. The learned senior counsel further says that the KSEB has been constrained to approach this Court because large number of applications are being made by the customers, some of them even for trivial reasons,
