The court established the principle that the amount deposited for dismantled connections should be adjusted towards the required deposit for filing appeals under the Electricity Act.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Both these writ petitions are filed by the petitioner who is a seafood exporter. The petitioner had two separate electrical connections for the processing factory and cold storage. Consumer No.7952 is the electrical connection of the processing factory. On 21.07.2017, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner requiring to pay ₹11,77,464/- alleging excess connected load. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objection, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P3 bill. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 bill filing Ext.P6 appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.

2. The petitioner states that in respect of the other consumer No.12511 also, similar demand was made and the said demand is also subject matter of appeal now. For consumer No.7952, the petitioner had given a security deposit of ₹4,41,908/-. In respect of consumer No.12511, a security deposit of ₹6,25,750/- was made. The total amount in deposit for these two connections is ₹10,67,658/-.

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner wanted to take new HT connection. The petitioner therefore disconnected supply under consumer Nos.7952 and 12511. The petitioner is now having a consolidated HT connection for the entire factory.

4. At the time of installation of HT connection, the respondents demanded ₹17,21,000/- as security deposit. The petitioner required the respondents to adjust ₹10,67,658/- already in their hand in respect of the dismantled old connections. The respondents refused to do so. The petitioner therefore deposited ₹17,21,000/- as security deposit for the new connection.

5. The petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the amount in Ext.P2 proceedings in order to entertain Ext.P6 appeal. The petitioner was also required to pay ₹11,775/- towards appeal fee. The petitioner filed Ext.P15 memo before the 5th respondent stating that he is ready to pay the appeal fee of ₹11,775/-. The 4th respondent, however, insisted on remitting 50% of the assessed amount for entertaining the appeal. Moreover, the 4th respondent has issued Ext.P16 threatening with revenue recovery proceedings. The petitioner therefore prayed that Ext.P5 be quashed and the permanent Lok Adalat be directed to reconsider the petition ELA No.237/2019 on merits. The petitioner further sought to direct the 5th respondent to entertain Ext.P6 appeal without insisting for payment of 50% of the assessed amount in Exts.P2 and P3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.39189/2023 on similar grounds in respect of consumer No.12511.

6. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The respondents denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. To entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner, deposit of 50% of the assessed amount is mandatory, contended the respondents. The deposit earlier made by the petitioner in respect of the dismantled connections is already adjusted towards other dues. Furthermore, the said deposit is subject matter of appeal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that the said deposit should be treated as statutory deposit for considering the appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

8. In respect of consumer Nos.7952 and 12511 provided to the petitioner which now stand dismantled, the respondents have issued bills alleging exceeded connected load. The petitioner has filed statutory appeals against the bills under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. Filing of statutory appeals mandates 50% deposit of the assessed amount. The petitioner has not deposited the 50% as required under laws, for the reason that deposits made by the petitioner earlier for obtaining electric supply to consumer Nos.7952 and 12511 is in deposit with the Electricity Board. The respondents, however, insist that the 50% mandatory deposit as well as appeal fee has to be paid by the petitioner in respect of the two appea