JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed by the Union Bank of India challenging Exhibit P3 bill dated 02.12.2013 issued by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) and Exhibit P7 order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ('Act, 2003' for short) r/w the Kerala State Electricity Board (Terms and Conditions of Supply), 2005 ('Supply Code, 2005' for short) as amended from time to time, whereby the appellate authority affirmed the bill issued by the Anti Power Theft Squad.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows :

The petitioner is a banking company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The petitioner Bank, for the purpose of providing ATM facility for its customers, took on rent a building bearing No.VII/491F of Vadanappally Grama Panchayat having an area of 688 sq. meters by executing a lease agreement on 01.01.2007, as is evident from Exhibit P1. According to the petitioner, after taking the building on rent, the machinery was installed and the premises became functional from 2007 onwards. The electricity connection to the premises was a single phase connection under the tariff LT VI C. It is further pointed out that the Bank was being provided with a monthly bill in respect of electricity connection and the same was promptly being paid by the petitioner Bank. According to the petitioner, in respect of additional consumption, on account of the energy charges, the Bank was directed to pay the increased amount of caution deposit.

3. While so, on 29.11.2013, inspection was conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad under the leadership of the Senior Superintendent, Kerala State Electricity Board, respondent No. 4, as is evident from Exhibit P2 site mahasar dated 29.11.2013. Thereafter, Exhibit P3 bill was issued for an amount of Rs.2,25,334/- for the unauthorised use of electricity from the month of November, 2007 till November, 2013. The petitioner filed Exhibit P4 objection dated 23.12.2013 and has deposited 50% of the amount assessed, it is submitted.

4. The case projected by the petitioner is that even though an objection was raised, the bill was confirmed. Being aggrieved, Exhibit P6 appeal was preferred. However, the appellate authority also rejected the contentions and affirmed the bill issued by the Anti Power Theft Squad. It is also submitted that the petitioner later filed Exhibit P8 application dated 04.12.2013 for the regularization of the additional load used for the premises taken on lease. Now, the case projected by the petitioner is that the appellate authority did not consider the contentions raised by the writ petitioner in its proper perspective and therefore, the bill as well as the appellate order is illegal and arbitrary.

5. It is further submitted that the usage of electrical energy was correctly metered and the petitioner had been promptly paying the bill for the same and therefore, there is no unauthorised usage of electricity so as to issue a huge demand as is seen from Exhibit P3. Further, the 4th respondent is not a person competent enough to conduct inspection and take action against the unauthorised use of electricity.

6. The petitioner has also raised a contention that the claim for the additional amount on the basis of the alleged unauthorised load is barred by law of limitation. Other contentions are also raised by the petitioner relying upon Section 126 of the Act, 2003.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Si. Sadchith P. Kurup and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board Sri. B. Pramod, and perused the pleadings and material on record.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced arguments on the basis of the pleadings deliberated above.

9. The learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, has fully supported the bill issued by the Anti Power Theft Squad and the order passed by the appella