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 electricity loads.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

In all these cases, KSEB challenges the orders passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority in appeals preferred by consumers against the orders passed by them under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 . The Appellate Authority, by the impugned orders, after finding that an unauthorised load was connected, devised a method for computing the amounts payable, which the Board challenges in all these cases.

2. In W.P(C) No.40116/2023, the Kerala State Electricity Board challenges the Ext.P7 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority dated 10.08.2023 in Appeal No.10/2023. This writ petition is treated as the leading case.

3. The brief facts in W.P(C) No. 40116/2023 relevant for disposal of the case are as follows:-

M/s. Ashis Super Mercato, an HT IVA consumer (Consumer No. 1355460032581, LCN 18/7086) under the 2nd respondent, was found to have an unauthorised additional load of 34.384kW during a surprise inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) on 25.11.2022. The consumer's sanctioned load was 61.198kW, and a provisional assessment order was issued on 03.12.2022, which was later finalised on 21.12.2022, rejecting the objections raised by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent challenged this final order before the 1st respondent Appellate Authority, which confirmed the finding of unauthorised load but directed that fixed charges be calculated based on the formula of Recorded Maximum Demand multiplied by the ratio of Unauthorised Additional Load to Total Connected Load, also allowing credit for current charges remitted.

4. The Electricity Board argues that the said direction contravenes Section 126 of the Electricity Act and the relevant judgments of the Courts. They also contend that the 3rd respondent is assessed under the tariff rates mandated by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC), which is the sole authority for determining electricity charges, and once determined, such rates bind both the Board and consumers. The Appellate Authority, constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, is obligated to adhere to the provisions and regulations of the Act and cannot interpret tariff regulations, yet it improperly devised a new method for assessing unauthorised usage.

5. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent did not contest the assessment prescribed under Section 126 , and the Appellate Authority's findings lack legal grounding and ignore proper guidelines set forth by KSERC, particularly regarding the power factor used for conversions. The Appellate Authority acknowledged the unauthorised usage but failed to follow the statutory mandate of making a proper assessment provided under Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act. Additionally, the Appellate Authority's concerns regarding the power factor—currently set at 0.9—are unfounded, as it has no authority to challenge the KSERC's regulatory KSEBL vs. Aluva Rubex specifications. This Court in (2019 2 KLT 266) held that connecting additional equipment/load without approval constitutes unauthorised use, leading to consequences under Section 126 . However, the Appellate Authority disregarded this and ignored that Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act form a self-contained framework.

6. The details of the other writ petitions are given in the table below: