2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 59066
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
VALSA K.K. – Appellant
Versus
THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STA – Respondent
WP(C)/36017/2008
SMT.T.K.SREEKALA, SRI.S.SUJIN, SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SC K.S.E.B, SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPALSCKSEB, SRI. ARUNKUMAR.A-SC
The authority to resolve disputes under the Electricity Act lies with the designated Appellate Authority, not the Deputy Chief Engineer.
Headnote:
Electricity - Writ Petition - Electricity Act 2003, Section on Appellate Authority - The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the designated Appellate Authority in adjudicating disputes under the Electricity Act, thereby allowing the petitioner to appeal against the Deputy Chief Engineer's order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order demanding payment due to a faulty meter, asserting that the defect was due to changes made by the KSEB, and contested the legality of the KSEB's order.
Issues: Whether the Deputy Chief Engineer had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner's claim regarding the disputed meter charges under the Electricity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Deputy Chief Engineer overstepped her authority as designated by the Electricity Act, necessitating a fresh appeal to the appropriate Appellate Authority.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to appeal to the designated Appellate Authority.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugnes Ext.P8 demand, as per which, an amount of Rs.1,27,547/- was demanded from her, which is, in fact, based on Ext.P7 order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short), Aluva. The petitioner's specific assertion in this writ petition is that the fault detected in the meter installed in her premises by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS for short) of the KSEB on 17.09.2003, cannot be attributed to her and that such a defect was only on account of the meter having been changed earlier and consequently that since it was changed by the Authorities of the KSEB themselves, nothing can be imputed against the petitioner. On such basis, she challenged the order of the APTS before the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Aluva, which appears to have been done after obtaining two different judgments from this Court. However, the Deputy Chief Engineer, through Ext.P7 order, rejected the petitioner's claim and this has now led to Ext.P8. The petitioner says that both Exts.P7 and P8 order and assessments are illegal in law.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB submits that the petitioner cannot impugn Ext.P7 since, as indicated above, the said order was issued on the basis of directions of this Court. He says that the said Authority has considered all the aspects involved in this matter and that Ext.P7 is a detailed order which speaks the reasons for the conclusions recorded therein. He says that no further reliefs can, therefore, be granted to the writ petitioner.
3. I notice that this writ petition has been pending before this Court from the year 2008, during which time the petitioner has been protected by an interim order with a condition that she pays an amount of Rs.30,000/- within a period of one month from 01.12.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this condition was complied with and therefore, that the interim order still continues to be in force.
4. I have examined Ext.P7 order issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Aluva. Even though, I do not propose to going to the merits of the contents of the said order, I am of the view that going by the Electricity Act 2003 and the Regulations there under, the competent Authority to consider the petitioner's claim was the designated Appellate Authority and not the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Aluva. Even though, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB says that the Deputy Chief Engineer had considered the petitioner's appeal as per directions of this Court, I cannot allow this order to continue since I cannot find any jurisdiction for the said Authority to have entered into such conclusions, going by the Indian , 2003 and its Regulations. I am, therefore, of the certain view, that the matter will require a fresh look by the competent designated Appellate Authority under the Act and Regulations.
5. In the afore circumstances, I grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh appeal before the designated Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and if such an appeal is received by the Appellate Authority within the time granted herein, it will consider the same and dispose it of, after affording an opportunity being heard to the petitioner as also the authorized representatives of the KSEB, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of the appeal.
6. Needless to say, the interim order granted by this Court will continue to be in effect until such time as the Appellate Authority disposes of the appeal and communicates the copy of its decision to the petitioner.
7. Since the petitioner has already deposited Rs.30,000/- as per the orders of this Court earlier, I direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal without insisting on any further pre-deposit.
At this time, the learned Standing Counsel of the KSEB says that there is an OTS Scheme which is, to his information, available until 31.12.20