Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
M. Kani, S/o. Manuel – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited – Respondent
WP(C) Nos 22476 of 2024, 43778 of 2024
Decided on : 11-09-2025
For the Appellant : ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE, SRI.P.K.HASSANKUTTY, SHRI.P.A.REJIMON, SMT.NIKITA NAIR C.S., SHRI.VIVEKJOS PUTHUKULANGARA, SHRI.SAJEEV JOHN T.
For the Respondent: ADVS. SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN, SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY, SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)
The appeal under Section 127 is not maintainable for cases involving theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act; proper calculation methods must be followed for assessments related to electricity theft.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 135 and 152 - Regulation 158 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014 - Consumer involved in alleged theft of electricity - The Electricity Board assessed a civil liability, which was remitted by the Consumer admitting guilt - The Consumer's appeal against the Board's assessment was entertained by the Appellate Authority, which was subsequently challenged by the Board - The court held that the appeal under Section 127 was not maintainable for proceedings under Section 135 of the Act - However, the method of calculating liability was incorrect and needed to be reassessed following the proper guidelines. (Paras 5, 8, 10)
(B) Regulation of electricity theft - The court clarified that proceedings concerning theft under Section 135 are distinct from those under Section 126, affecting the appeal process available to consumers. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The Consumer, following an inspection, was found to have illegally abstracted electricity and admitted the allegation by making payment of a provisional assessment order issued against him. The subsequent appeal by the Consumer was allowed by the Appellate Authority.
Findings of Court:
The provisional and final orders were set aside due to incorrect computation methods, requiring fresh calculations per the established guidelines.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the appeal under Section 127 regarding a case of theft under Section 135 and the method of assessment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the appeal was not maintainable under Section 127 in this context, the correct method of assessment must be followed for the electricity theft indicated.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of, directing reassessment within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. implementation of appellate authority orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. maintenance of appeal provisions in theft cases (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. correct calculation methodologies in assessments (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
W.P.(C) No.22476 of 2024 seeks the implementation of the order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority dated 30.01.2024. W.P.(C) No.43778 of 2024 is filed by the Electricity Board challenging the very same order of the Appellate Authority. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22476 of 2024 is described as the Consumer, and he is the second respondent in the writ petition filed by the Board.
2. On 08.03.2023, at about 11.45 am, there was an inspection in the premises of the Hotel owned by the second respondent, consumer, by the Anti Power Theft Squad. Following the inspection, it was alleged in the mahazar that the Consumer had indulged in an illegal abstraction of electricity by connecting a PVC wire from the incoming terminal of the Single-Phase Energy Meter, extending the supply for carrying out construction works on the eastern side of the Hotel, which resulted in an additional load of 7340W. Thus, it was alleged that the petitioner committed theft of electrical energy within the meaning of Section 135 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. On 09.03.2023, the second respondent was served with a provisional assessment order showing a civil liability of Rs.2,66,119/-. The petitioner did not file any objections to the provisional order, but remitted the amount on 14.03.2023, admitting the allegation of theft. The second respondent also applied before the Assistant Engineer concerned, seeking permission to compound the offence on the assurance that he would not commit any such offence in future. This was made through Ext.P4 application. On receipt of Ext.P4, the Board imposed Rs 80,000/- as a compounding fee. The compounding application was allowed on condition that the petitioner clear the civil liability before effecting re-connection. The second respondent remitted the amount quantified as civil liability along with the compounding fee, and pursuant to the same, the electric connection was restored.
4. The second respondent then filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 26.04.2023. The appeal was allowed in favour of the Consumer, and the final assessment order dated 20.03.2023 was set aside along with a direction to refund the amount deposited along with interest as per regulation 158(17) of the ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE , 2014. This order is challenged by the Board while the consumer seeks implementation of the same.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board submits that the appeal filed under Section 127 was not maintainable as the allegation was that of theft under Section 135 . Since the appeal under Section 127 and Regulation 158 is confined to the proceedings under Section 126 of the Act, the Appellate Authority grossly erred in entertaining the appeal. True, the Officers of the Board never took such contention before the Appellate Authority about the maintainability of the appeal. However, on a reading of Sections 126 and 127, it is specifically clear that no appeal could have been filed except in the manner provided under Section 127 , and the same is confined to a proceeding under Section 126.
6. In the instant case, from the stage of mahazar, the Board alleged that the petitioner had committed theft of electrical energy coming within the meaning of Section 135 of the Act. As per the procedure laid down in Chapter IX, the petitioner had applied for compounding under Section 152 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , which was also allowed. That apart, Chapter IX deals with theft, unauthorised use and other irregularities. The proceedings against theft, unauthorised use and irregularities are stipulated from Regulation 148 onwards. Though the learned counsel for the consumer disputes the procedure adopted by the Board and
