Extension of electric supply to portable electrical equipment within the same premises and for the same sanctioned purpose is not treated as unauthorized extension under Regulation 154(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner, a consumer of the Electricity with the Code of HTB24/5859 issued under the name and style 'M/s Silver Castle Holidays & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.', has challenged an order dated 20.12.2016 of Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal bearing No.178 of 2016 preferred against the final assessment order based upon the inspection of the premises on 04.06.2014.

2. For carrying out the activity, the petitioner was issued a connected load of 475.36kW. On 04.06.2014 inspection was conducted and as per the site mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer, the provisional assessment bill of Rs.6,06,970/- was issued on 03.07.2014 on account of unauthorised use of electricity as per the provisions of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. From the contents of the provisional assessment, it was found that petitioner was alleged to have used unauthorized extension of 15210 watts i.e. 16kW approximately at different locations for carrying out the construction activities. An objection to the aforementioned provisional bill was filed and a hearing was conducted on 18.07.2014, resulting into final assessment order.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner an appellant before the authority, submitted that it was not an unauthorised use of the case of the electricity as the extension of load of 16kW was within the permissible load. Appellate authority did not refer to the exact provisions of Regulation 154(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 which pertains to portable electrical equipment. Though the same was referred to but the complete provisions were not read leading to rejection of the appeal thus, there is a fallacity much less an aberration/repugnancy. In fact the extended load of 16KW=15210 wattage was within the sanctioned load. Infact it was the case of the extension of supply and not of an unauthorised use.

4. On the other hand Mr.Premod, learned Standing Counsel representing the Kerala State Electricity Board submits that no doubt, it was a case of extension supply but would not fall within the provisions of the tariff code relied upon, as no such permission was obtained. The details of the machinery connected referred to in the provisional assessment was not seriously objected. Usage of less machinery than the sanctioned load would also amount to unauthorise use, in case the entire machinery if put on use exceeds the sanctioned load. The order do not call for any different version than the one arrived at.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

6. Regulation 154(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 reads thus:

"154(4) Extension of electric supply through the meter to adjacent rooms or toilets or sheds or such other structures within the premises or to portable electrical equipment for the use in the same premises and for the same sanctioned purpose, shall not be treated as unauthorised extension."

7. On perusal of the same, it does not specify to as unauthorised but a case of the electricity extension of supply in the same premises in respect of a portable equipment. The appellate authority while referring to the arguments of the petitioner, in the following line omitted to refer to the expression 'portable equipments'. The relevant portion of the appellate authority reads thus:

"The regulation 154(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 states that extension to adjacent rooms, or sheds or structure for the same sanctioned purpose shall not be treated as unauthorized extension, here the sanctioned purpose is for running the resorts and extension was for entirely different construction purpose. Regarding the argument that Section 101 of the Evidence Act put burden on the KSEB Ltd to establish the construction activity, the appellant had already admitted the construction activity before the respondent during the objection hearing on 18.07.2014 and it is already established. It is also evident from the site mahazer the supply was purposef