IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a licensee cannot claim short assessment for more than twelve months when the error is attributable to its own actions and proper notice is not given.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), Alappuzha has come up with the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

The consumer, 2nd respondent, along with four others, constituted a trust by name Sevanam Medical and Educational Trust, Kattanam and is running a hospital. The said hospital had applied for electric connection and received the connection with the consumer No.13538. While so, the Assistant Executive Engineer of the KSEB issued a notice to the 2nd respondent/consumer intimating that, in the inspection conducted by the vigilance wing on 22.5.2015, it was found that the consumer was charged in a differential tariff and thus, an amount of Rs.2,85,891/-is due from him and hence directed the 2nd respondent/consumer to remit the aforesaid amount within seven days from 23.05.2015. Aggrieved by the said short assessment bill, the 2nd respondent consumer approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the KSEB, but, by order dated 8.7.2015, the complaint was rejected confirming the short assessment bill. Aggrieved by the rejection, the 2nd respondent approached the State Electricity Ombudsman and, the Electricity Ombudsman, by Ext.P4 order dated 30.11.2015, allowed the appeal and the short assessment bill was set aside. The petitioners were also directed to reclassify the consumer’s category with effect from the date of inspection as per Regulation 97(1) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014.

3. Heard Sri. Nirmal S., the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. K. Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that in terms of Regulation 152 of the Electricity Supply Code 2014, the petitioners were entitled to issue the short assessment bill for a period of twenty four months. In the present case, according to the petitioners, the Anti Power Theft Squad, Kozhikode conducted a site inspection on 22.05.2015 and detected that the consumer was billed wrongly in tariff LT VI B instead of LT VI F. The tariff applicable to the private hospital category was reclassified from LT VI B to LT VIII as per tariff order dated 30.4.2013 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Board order dated 03.6.2013 with effect from May 2013. The tariff was again changed from LT VIII to LT VI F by the Regulatory Commission by order dated 14.8.2014 and Board order dated 04.10.2014 with effect from August 2014. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to raise the short assessment bill for a period of twenty four months as provided under the Regulations.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/consumer would point out that the application given by the consumer was processed wrongly by the Kerala State Electricity Board and the consumer cannot be penalised for the said act. The mistake, if any, caused was apparently due to the latches on the side of the officers concerned and there is no misstatement or concealment of facts by the consumer. At any rate, tampering of the metre and also unauthorised use of the electric energy are not found against the 2nd respondent, consumer. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the Electricity Ombudsman is perfectly justified and need not be interfered by this Court in the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar.

7. The pointed question which requires attention of this Court is as to whether the K.S.E.B should be permitted to issue short assessment bill for the mistake committed by its officers in wrongly including the consumer in the tariff LT VI B instead of LT VIII and thereafter changed to LT VI F. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners had wrongly classified the 2nd