IMPORTANT POINT
A short assessment bill for electricity charges is barred by limitation if not issued within two years from the date the amount became due, and procedural requirements for issuing such bills must be strictly followed.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

The short question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the impugned Ext.P5 order is correct in holding that Ext.P1 short assessment bill raised by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) for the period from April, 2010, to March, 2011 is barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”).

2. The writ petition is filed by the KSEB challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent -the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The case projected in the writ petition is that the premises of the first respondent, Sri.Arun R. Chandran (consumer), was inspected by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the KSEB during March, 2010, and found that the first respondent consumer was using unauthorized additional load of 4 kw in addition to the registered connected load of 14 kw. The penal bill issued to the first respondent was paid without any objection. The unauthorized additional load was regularized by the first respondent only in March, 2011. Thereafter, Ext.P1 short assessment bill for penal charges for the subsequent months for the unauthorized additional load from April, 2010 to March, 2011, was issued to the first respondent on 17.08.2015 on the basis of an audit of the Electric Section, Kodakara, conducted on 03.09.2012. Though the first respondent filed an objection before the Assistant Engineer, it was rejected confirming Ext.P1. Challenging this, the first respondent filed a petition before the second respondent and as per Ext.P5 order, the second respondent cancelled Ext.P1 short assessment bill, holding that the said demand was raised after four years without showing the same as arrears recoverable in the subsequent bills. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the KSEB has come up before this Court with the writ petition.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/KSEB as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB, the finding of the second respondent that the issuance of Ext.P1 short assessment bill for the period from April, 2010 to March, 2011 is not legally correct, is wrong and unsustainable. It is submitted that Ext.P1 bill for the unauthorized load was first time issued only on 17.08.2015 and therefore, the same is not hit by Section 56(2) of the Act. It is further pointed out that as per Section 134(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, if the licensee establishes either by review or otherwise, that it has undercharged the consumer, the licensee may recover the amount so undercharged from the consumer. Hence, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the KSEB is entitled to recover the said amount. To substantiate the arguments, the learned Standing Counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Mar Athanasios College v. KSEB & others [2014:KER:27167]. It is submitted that the delay occurred in raising Ext.P1 short assessment bill is only due to administrative reasons, however, the first respondent is duty bound to pay the said charges since an unauthorized load was detected in the premises. Further, it was pointed out that the date on which the amount became first due is 17.08.2015, i.e., the date on which the bill was first time issued to the first respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the APTS inspected the premises in March, 2010, and the said unauthorized additional load was regularized in March, 2011. It was further submitted that the penal charges demanded by the KSEB were paid by the first respondent without raising any objection and the first respondent was not aware of the fact that any further amount was due from him. According to the learned counsel, the demand is clearly out of time and the KSEB, while issuing Ext.P1 short assessment bill, did not comply with the procedures contemplated under Section 126 of the Act, which specify that before fin