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.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANU, J.

First respondent is running a hospital. Electricity supply under LT-VIB Tariff in three phases with sanctioned load 74kW was availed by the 1^st respondent. In an inspection conducted by Vigilance Special Squad led by Anti Power Theft Squad, Palakkad unit in the premises of the 1^st respondent on 27.3.2003, additional load of 46kW over and above registered load of 74kW was detected. Penalty was imposed and the same was remitted by the 1^st respondent. Though it was directed to regularise the unauthorised additional load, same was not done by the 1^st respondent for a long time. The supply was not disconnected, however, charges for additional load continued to be demanded and paid by the 1^st respondent.

2. According to the KSEB penal portion of fixed charges from June 2008 to March 2011 and energy charges from June 2007 to April 2011 were not included in the monthly demands by mistake. It was noticed in the audit of accounts. Thereafter, a demand was issued for the escaped charges on 30.10.2011. The bill was for an amount of Rs.18,58,537/-. First respondent challenged the demand in W.P.(C)No.30946/2011. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 8.11.2013. Impugned demand was set aside and Board was given liberty to impose penalty in compliance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act.

3. First respondent submitted a representation on 17.7.2014 to the Assistant Engineer requesting to drop the demand. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was issued by the Assistant Engineer directing to remit the amount as per the final bill. A detailed split up was also furnished along with the order. First respondent challenged the order by approaching the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. The appellate authority after considering the matter, by order dated 23.12.2015 allowed the appeal. Final assessment order was set aside and Board was directed to refund the amount already deposited by the 1^st respondent with interest. W.P. (C)No.17906/2016 was filed by the Board challenging the order of the appellate authority. First respondent filed W.P. (C)No.40877/2016 seeking direction to refund an amount of Rs.9,29,300/- deposited with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 1.9.2014. Since the writ petitions are inter-related they were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. Parties are being referred as they are arrayed in W.P.(C)No.17906/2016. Reference to the documents is also as marked in the said writ petition.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB Sri.Ajit Joy contended that the order of the appellate authority is illegal. He submitted that the consumer had indulged in unauthorised use of energy. 46 kW was the unauthorised load. Though the penalty was paid, 1^st respondent failed to regularise the additional load. Steps were taken by the 1^st respondent much later for regularisation of unauthorised load. First respondent is liable to pay penalty for the unauthorised additional load until the additional load is removed or regularised as per the Rules. Due to inadvertence at the time of computerization fixed charges from 6/2008 to 3/2011 and energy charges from 6/2007 to 4/2011 were omitted when monthly demands were raised. Bill for an amount of Rs.18,58,537/- was issued on 31.10.2011 when the omission was noticed. The demand so raised was in accordance with the relevant Regulations and Rules. Therefore, the demand was in fact an assessment made for escaped charges for a period during which the energy charges and fixed charges were omitted to be demanded. The learned Standing Counsel referred to Regulation 51(2) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 which provides that the penalty for unauthorised additional load s