THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R6 PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL R.A.NO.73/2018; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2022 BEARING NO.MAVISA KAM/KANDAAYA MELMANAVI/AA.KAA/5690-92) PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN APPEAL CASE R.A.NO.73/2018 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority in RA No. 73/2018, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed and revised back billing demand raised by respondent authorities has been confirmed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity bearing RR No. KYP16 with a sanctioned load of 25 HP and was originally billed under LT6 tariff. The installation is utilized for water supply and sewage pumping in a residential layout. It is the case of the petitioner that on 21.03.2017, an inspection was conducted by the vigilance authorities, pursuant to which it was alleged that there was a misuse of electricity and incorrect tariff classification. Based on the said inspection, a back billing demand was raised. Subsequently revised by notice dated 03.05.2018 demanding a sum of `14,20,770/-. Aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and deposited 50% of the assessed amount as required under Section 127(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘the Act’ for short). The said appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order leading to the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is arbitrary, non-speaking and suffers from non-application of mind. It is contended that the petitioner's installation is exclusively used for water supply and sewage purposes in a residential layout and therefore, the applicable tariff is LT6. The authorities have failed to consider the nature of usage and have erroneously sustained the reassessment. It is contended that the Appellate Authority has not rendered any clear finding on the applicable tariff, but has mechanically confirmed the demand raised by the respondent authorities. It is contended that the reassessment and the application of multiple factors have been retrospectively applied for an extended period which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that the electromechanical meter was replaced by electronic tri-vector CT enabled meter on 15.04.2015 and therefore any reassessment, if at all permissible, can be applied only from the said date. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks modification of the impugned order and recalculation of the demand in accordance with law.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the inspection conducted by the vigilance authorities revealed misuse of electricity and incorrect tariff classification justifying reassessment. It is contended that the revised demand has been raised in accordance with the provisions of the KERC Electricity Supply and Distribution Code and the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the Appellate Authority upon consideration of the material on record has rightly affirmed the demand and no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. The foundation of the impugned demand notice arises from the inspection dated 21.03.2017, where the petitioner's installation originally classified as LT6 has been treated as misused and classified as LT3 for the purpose of back billing. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's installation is utilized for water supply and sewage pumping in the electricity layout. LT6 of the tariff schedule reads as under :

“TARIFF SCHE