IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that a single notice suffices for disconnection under the Electricity Act, negating the need for a separate notice, thus ruling the complaint as not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, “the KSEB”) seeking to quash Ext.P5 order issued by the second respondent, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-

The first respondent/consumer filed Ext.P1 complaint before the second respondent alleging shortcomings/defects in the service of the KSEB regarding non-service of notice to defaulting consumers, noticing that the KSEB is in the practice of issuing demand and disconnection notice to the consumers in general. The main grievance of the first respondent was that the KSEB is not issuing a separate notice of disconnection before the disconnection is effected. Though the first respondent did not receive any such notice, apprehending that he will also be served with such a notice, he requested the Chairman of KSEB to start issuance of a legally prescribed notice for disconnection. Since there was no reply, he approached the second respondent with the complaint. The Secretary (Administration) of the KSEB filed an objection, contending that the first respondent has no allegation or grievance that the KSEB had done anything against him, which satisfies the definition enumerated in Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005, (for short, “the Regulations”). It was further contended that the first respondent neither has a complaint nor he has been authorized by any other consumer to file a complaint before the second respondent; and hence, the complaint filed by the first respondent before the second respondent is not maintainable. The second respondent, as per Ext.P3 order, after elaborate consideration of the issue, finding that the complaint is maintainable, directed the KSEB to issue a separate notice for payment of electricity dues and for disconnection of supply for non payment of electricity dues. The KSEB filed Ext.P4 review petition before the second respondent, contending that the demand cum disconnection notice issued by the KSEB satisfies the conditions stipulated in Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (for short, “the Code”), as well as paragraph 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”). According to the KSEB, the demand cum disconnection notice provides prior information to the consumer regarding the date of disconnection well in advance and hence, the finding of the second respondent ought to have been reviewed. However, Ext.P4 review petition was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order dated 12.01.2017. Aggrieved by this, the KSEB has come up before this Court.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/KSEB submitted that the complaint filed by the first respondent is not maintainable under Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations and the finding of the second respondent that a separate notice for disconnection is necessary, is against the provisions of the Code and the Act. It is pointed out that in order to maintain a complaint before the second respondent, the complainant should have a grievance as enumerated in Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations. To substantiate the contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Prabhu K.N. v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Others [2021 KHC 704].

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the complaint filed by the first respondent is maintainable before the second respondent since there was violation of the Regulations in the KSEB issuing demand cum disconnection notice, which is against Section 56(1) of the Act and Regulation 138(1) of the Code. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent was apprehending that he will also be issued with the very same notice, which will put him into great difficulty. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the second respondent does not deserve any inte