IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the petitioner could not invoke writ jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternate remedy under the Electricity Act, and that the provisions of Regulation 153(15) were misconceived.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is a charitable institution registered under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P7 final assessment order issued by the 1st respondent herein, alleging unauthorised use of electricity as well as misuse of electric connection.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner, it is stated, was holding an electricity connection under HT II Tariff. The connected load of electricity was to the extent of 120KVA. It is pointed out that, on account of increase in connected load to 300KVA, an appropriate application was preferred before the board for such enhancement as well as additional power allocation. The application was processed by the board and Ext.P2 dated 07.10.2015 was issued by the 2nd respondent. It may straightaway be noticed that, Ext.P2 has been issued with specific reference to the request made by the petitioner dated 18.10.2014. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner was directed to carry out the work required for the additional power allocation. It is pointed out that the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P2 had started the additional work also.

3. However, on 17.12.2015, an inspection was carried out in the premises of the petitioner by the APTS. Ext.P3 is the Mahazar prepared pursuant to the said inspection. It is noticed that in Ext.P3 Mahazar, there is a specific endorsement to the effect that the security seals as regards the meter were intact and also that the meter was functioning properly. However, in the Mahazar, the fact that, an educational institution was running in the first floor of the building is recorded.

4. On the basis of Ext.P3 Mahazar, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner culminating in the issue of provisional assessment order dated 30.07.2016 produced as Ext.P4 in this writ petition. In the provisional assessment order, the allegation is to the effect that, there was an unauthorized additional load of 470.95 KVA and a misuse to the extend of 94.5 KVA. Ext.P5 is the provisional assessment bill forming part of Ext.P4 provisional assessment order. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection dated 04.08.2016 produced as Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, one of the main objections raised by the petitioner was with reference to the provisions under Regulation 155(9) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for short). The petitioner had also raised various contentions with reference to the application of Regulation 153 (15) of the Code. However, by the impugned order at Ext.P7 dated 29.08.2016, the assessment was finalised by the 1st respondent herein, finalising the proposals contained in the provisional order. A total demand to the extent of Rs.30,12,016/- towards penal charges was raised against the petitioner.

5. It is aggrieved by the above Ext.P7 order, that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.

6. A detailed counter affidavit dated 21.03.2023 has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that, the petitioner is not justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, by passing the appellate remedy under Section 126 of the Electricity Supply Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Electricity Act’). It is further pointed out with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board and others v. Thomas Joseph and others [2022 (6) KLT Online 1054 (SC)], that reference to Regulation 153(15) of the Code cannot be had by the petitioner.

7. I have heard Sri.Wilson Urmese, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Ajit Joy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

8. Sri.Wilson Urmese, the counsel for the petitioner would contend as under:

(i) The proceedings initiated by Ext.P5, which culminated in Ext.P7 order is beyond the period prescribed under Regulation 155 (9) of the Code.

(ii) He points out to the definition of “unauthorized