Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ, J.
Ajith Thacholi, S/o. T.K. Balakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board - Respondent
WP(C) No. 12047 of 2016
Decided on : 11-04-2025
(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 126 - KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply, 2005 - Challenge to demand for unauthorized use of electricity - Petitioner, a lessee, paid provisional bill but later contested further demands raised without compliance with regulatory provisions - Court found that once the assessed amount was paid, no further liability could be imposed under the proviso to Section 126(6) - Demand raised after significant delay and without proper notice was set aside. (Paras 5, 10, 15, 16)
(B) Locus Standi - The petitioner’s challenge to the demand was valid despite the connection being in another's name, as he had paid the assessed amount and no objection was raised at that time. (Paras 7, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, proprietor of a consultancy, challenged demands for unauthorized electricity use after paying a provisional bill. The Board later raised additional demands without following regulatory procedures.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the subsequent demands were invalid as the petitioner had already settled the provisional bill, and the Board failed to act within the regulatory framework.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the demand raised after payment of the provisional bill and the petitioner’s locus standi to challenge the demand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the assessed amount was paid, the petitioner could not be subjected to further liability, and the Board's failure to comply with regulatory provisions invalidated the subsequent demands.
Result: The impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P5, P6, P6(a), Ext.P9 and P10.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of ‘Campus International’, an establishment extending consultancy services in the education sector. The electricity connection to the premises in question, taken on lease by the petitioner, stands in the name of the additional 3rd respondent.
3. On the basis of local inspection conducted on 23.08.2006, the 2nd respondent issued a provisional bill demanding an amount of Rs.3150/- as a penalty for unauthorised use of electricity. It is further stated that if there is any objection against the provisional bill, that can be raised before the appropriate authority. However, without raising any objection, the petitioner remitted the amount, as evidenced by Ext.P3, wherein it is specifically stated as a full settlement. Thereafter, for more than six years, the petitioner continued to remit the bi-monthly charges without giving room for any further complaint.
4. Moreover, it is contended by the petitioner that if any Unauthorised Additional Load is found, it is the duty of the Board to raise demand and act in accordance with the provisions under Regulation 19(5) of the KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply, 2005. According to the said Regulation, the Board may, in writing, inform the consumer to execute a fresh agreement in the form applicable within 30 days and that the consumer shall comply with the same. No such steps have been taken by the Board in compliance with the Regulation 19(5).
5. However, on 19.02.2013, a further demand was raised as per Ext.P5 for an amount of Rs.2,00,294/- under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (For short ‘the Act, 2003’). Along with Ext.P5, separate calculation statement also was preferred as per Exts.P6 and P6(a), wherein it is specifically demanded for fixed charges and energy charges separately. In this context, it is contended that endorsement made in Ext.P2 bill was issued on 28.08.2006 intimating levy of penalty under unauthorised load on fixed charges alone was strictly in conformity with the Board order prevailing at that point of time. The Board order dated 18.09.2002 is produced as Ext.P7, wherein Clause 2 specifically states that ‘in the case of LT consumers other than domestic consumers, the penalty for unauthorised additional load shall be levied at the rate of twice the fixed charges per KW of additional load per month or part thereof till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per rules’. Whereas, the demand raised as per Exts.P5 and P6 is pursuant to Ext.P8. According to the petitioner, that is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, since it was issued on 07.02.2008 in light of the amended provisions to the Act, 2003. Ext. P8 was issued under those provisions, which have no retrospective effect.
6. The petitioner has also challenged Ext.P5 before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. That was rejected as not maintainable by order dated 12.02.2016 on the preliminary ground that the petitioner cannot maintain a complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the electric connection does not stand in his name. Thereafter, the petitioner has issued with a revised notice as per Exts.P9 and P10. This is the circumstance in which the petitioner had challenging Exts.P5, P6, P6(a), Ext.P9 and P10.
7. Per contra, Sri.Nirmal S., the Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that primarily the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the bill issued to the additional 3rd respondent. The bills were issued in accordance with Section 126 of the Act, 2003, and pursuant to the Board order dated 07.02.2008, which is produced as Ext.P8. It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced any document to prove that he is either an authorised occupier of the premises or the owner.
8. According to the respondents, an inspection was conducted by the Section Squad in the premises of the con
Once an assessed amount is paid under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, no further liability can be imposed, especially if the regulatory procedures were not followed.
Procedures for assessing unauthorized electricity use can rely solely on record inspections without necessitating physical site reviews, as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
Court upheld the appellate authority's restriction of liability for unauthorized electricity usage to 12 months due to lack of evidence for a longer period as per Electricity Act.
Electricity - On a reading of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 and Regulation 27A, it is clear that a clear cut procedure is prescribed for dealing with unauthorised load, and merely because the Billing ....
The court held that excess connected load constitutes unauthorised use of electricity, but the Appellate Authority cannot enhance demands without a challenge from the original authority and notifying....
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the consumer to demonstrate the actual period of unauthorized electricity use to challenge assessments under Section 126(5).
Electricity usage must align with sanctioned load; unauthorized use attracts penalties under the Electricity Act.
The court upheld the statutory requirement for the payment of assessed amounts and interest as per the Electricity Act, rejecting claims of improper assessment.
The Electricity Appellate Authority acted within its jurisdiction in reassessing the duration of unauthorized load as per statutory requirements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
