IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15793 OF 2016 PETITIONER:

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KAZHAKUTTAM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.

SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)

SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS:

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY C.C.51/52, NEAR 110 KV SUB STATION, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019.

2 SRI. K.E.PRAMOD COMMERCIAL MANAGER, THE LEELA SCOTISH LACE PVT. LTD., INFRA INTERNATIONAL APPARAL PARK, ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 586.

BY ADV SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN ADV.JUSTINE JACOB-SR.GP ADV. GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW -SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

11.02.2022, THE COURT ON 04.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter called KSEB) has challenged the order of the appellate authority allowing the appeal No.109/2015 preferred against the assessment order on various grounds.

2. The facts in brief are that, on 20.11.2017, the Anti-

Power Theft Squad (APTS), Thiruvananthapuram unit of KSEB along with ofÏcers of electrical section conducted a surprise inspection in the factory premises of 2^nd respondent. Accordingly, a site mahazar Ext.P1 dated 20.11.2007 was prepared detailing the additional unauthorised load allegedly detected during the inspection. The additional load detected was 215 KW equal to 253 KVA. The sanctioned load was 240 KVA. The inspection details of the unauthorised load was forwarded to Special OfÏcer, Revenue and on that basis, provisional bill demanding an amount of Rs.10,65,732/- was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent submitted an objection which were to be decided within 30 days though it was not decided in

30 days and final assessment order was passed on 30.08.2008 where a partial relief was given to the consumer. The said order was challenged before the Deputy Chief Engineer, which was disposed on 24.05.2010. The 2^nd respondent also approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum on 08.05.2010 by laying challenge to the provisional bill. The said complaint was rejected by the Redressal Forum by advising the 2^nd respondent to file a fresh complaint regarding issues related to non- segregation of the lighting load. The 2^nd respondent approached the Ombudsman. Ombudsman vide order dated 17.08.2010, as per averment without any jurisdiction, observed that the KSEB shall be free to issue fresh provisional assessment towards penal charges on additional load as well as special fresh assessment towards penal charges on non-segregation of lighting load. In obedience to the direction of the Ombudsman the final order was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the 2^nd respondent raising a demand towards the unauthorised additional load of Rs.14,68,275/- by cancelling the demand of Rs.4,23,462.60/- towards non-segregation of lighting load.

Against the aforementioned order Ext.P3, 2^nd respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.

3. Sri. Raju Joseph, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition laying challenge to the order of the appellate authority has raised the following submissions:

I) On inspection, no prejudice has been caused in case the provisional assessment was done by special ofÏcer as the reports are always sent in respect of HT, EHT consumers to Special Revenue OfÏcer. Thus, the observation that the provisional bill should have been issued by the assessing ofÏcer, is wholly cryptic and opaque. Even the defect was also rectified by sending a provisional bill by the assessing authority.

ii) It is the conceded position on record that the 2^nd respondent had connected additional load to the electricity main without approval of the electricity board.

iii) If the final assessment order was not passed within 30 days, consequences in the language of Section