JUDGMENT

Ext.P7 order of the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority dated 26.10.2015 has been assailed by the Electricity Board setting aside the demand of Rs.11,73,604/-dated 12.11.2014 issued by them on the allegation of unauthorised use of the electricity by the first respondent -consumer which was reassessed as Rs.3,98,358/-. The first respondent is a consumer of the electricity connection having a consumer No.4356 with a load of 53KW under LT 4A (industrial tariff). On 10.11.2014, inspection squad of the Electricity Board inspected the premises of the consumer and found that illegal abstraction of energy by cutting the pressure lead wire of R phase to the CT meter installed in the premises of the consumer. After provisional assessment of Rs.11,73,604/- as referred above resulted into final assessment of Rs.3,98,352/-. Consumer preferred the challenge in the aforementioned provisional assessment order before the Appellate Authority which has quashed the aforementioned order.

2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that the Appellate Authority have not taken into consideration the mahazar in which the consumer was found to have tampered with the electricity meter as a red colour tape was used in the R Phase to hide the modus operandi to obstruct the electricity illegally. Even the meter box was not sealed. The provisional and final assessment resulted into tampering of the meter circuit, which was gross violation of the provisions of Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The assessment was taken as five months of the existing meter installed in the month of June 2014.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel representing the consumer submitted that the percentage error of the meter was not calculated by using Accu-Check meter or metering data was not downloaded using MRI for detailed analysis. Sub Engineer who had taken the meter reading of the premises did not verify the parameters nor such abnormalities were seen reported. Neither the meter was removed or sent to the laboratory for analysis. Therefore, the alleged demand has rightly been quashed.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

5. The factum of the inspection of the premises of the petitioner having consumer number aforementioned installed in June, 2014 with LT4A is not in dispute. On the basis of the suspicion and inspection, it was found that in the R phase the consumer had used a red tape to hide out the modus operandi for stealing electricity, but did not remove the meter for analysis in the laboratory for the reason that it was an electronic meter. By pressing the buttons, everything regarding the voltage, ampere, load and actual consumption of the same could have been asserted. No such reading was conducted which could not result into forming an opinion of unauthorised use of the electricity much less the theft. Even the FIR was also not registered. The Appellate Authority found all these facts in favour of the consumers. I am of the view that such findings do not call for any interference forming of a different opinion as it does not suffer from any illegality and perversity.

Writ Petition sans merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE

csl

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9948/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT DATED 10-11-2014.

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THGE MAHASSOR DATED 10-11-

2014.

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED

12-11-2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 13-11-

2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 10-12-

2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT BILL DATED 11-12-2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26-10-2015 OF THE

2ND RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.99/2014.