IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, P.M.MANOJ
M.A. Mahaboob, Managing Partner, Hycount Plastics & Chemicals – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, Represented By Its Chairman – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 44) |
JUDGMENT :
(A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.)
As a common issue arises in the Writ Appeal and the two Writ Petitions, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.
The Brief Facts:
W.A.No.44 of 2019 & W.P(C).No.7734 of 2019
2. The writ appeal impugns the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.31411 of 2017 whereby the challenge by the appellant against an order of the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was dismissed as devoid of merit. W.P(C).No.7734 of 2019 on the other hand is a writ petition filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. [KSEB], the distribution licensee in the instant case, impugning the orders of the assessing authority and the appellate authority under the Electricity Act to the extent that they passed their respective orders in relation to the writ appellant, in a manner that was inconsistent with the terms of the Electricity Act. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of these two cases are as follows:
The appellant is a consumer of a High Tension Industrial connection from the KSEB and its monthly b
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).
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.
The court asserted that the Electricity Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in contravening statutory mandates under Section 126 while asserting a new method for assessing unauthorized elec....
The Electricity Appellate Authority acted within its jurisdiction in reassessing the duration of unauthorized load as per statutory requirements.
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 usage must align with sanctioned load; unauthorized use attracts penalties under the Electricity Act.
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.
Unauthorized use of electricity requires actual consumption beyond contracted load; mere extension of load without use does not constitute violation.
Unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 requires actual consumption beyond authorized load; mere extension of load without use does not qualify.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.