The court held that failure to process an application for enhanced electric load timely resulted in undue demand for unauthorized charges.

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.(C) No.11975 of 2025 are the appellants herein.

2. The respondent is stated to be a High-Tension consumer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘consumer’) under the jurisdiction of the 2^nd appellant. The respondent has been running a hospital at Kottakkal, Malappuram, with a sanctioned connected load of 1015.896 kW and contract demand of 300 kVA. On the basis of an inspection of the premises of the respondent on 17.10.2022, allegedly leading to the detection of an unauthorised additional load of 683 kW, pursuant to a provisional assessment order, Ext.P3 – final assessment order was issued, demanding an amount of Rs.1,58,75,161/-. The respondent filed an appeal under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), essentially contending that, as early as in 2019 itself, he had sought for an enhancement in the connected load by filing an appropriate application and it is without taking note of this, the allegation as regards the unauthorised load was raised. The Appellate Authority, by Ext.P6 order, considered the contention raised, elaborately, finding that the consumer required additional power, for which he had taken whatever steps that were required to be taken, and the failure was on the part of the licensee in processing the application in time. Ultimately, the final assessment order was set aside with a further direction to refund whatever amounts remitted by the consumer with applicable interest.

3. The appellants herein instituted W.P.(C) No.11975 of

2025, seeking to challenge Ext.P6 order of the Appellate Authority. The consumer instituted W.P.(C) No.1815 of 2025 seeking directions to the Electricity Board to implement the orders of the Appellate Authority. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by a common judgment dated 11.07.2025, considered the rival contentions, finding that no circumstances warranting interference with the findings of the Appellate Authority are established. Consequently, W.P.(C) No.11975 of 2025, filed by the Electricity Board, is dismissed, and W.P.(C) No.1815 of 2025, filed by the consumer, is allowed, directing the Board to implement the orders of the Appellate Authority within a time frame in the manner prescribed by the learned Single Judge.

4. It is seeking to challenge the judgment in W.P.(C)

No.11975 of 2025 that the petitioners therein (KSEB-licensee)

have instituted this intra-court appeal.

5. We have heard Sri.Ajit Joy, learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Sri. Augustine Joseph, learned counsel for the respondent herein.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would essentially contend that the finding as regards the “deemed sanction” by the learned Single Judge was without taking note of the other provisions of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Supply Code’). According to him, the application filed by the respondent on 13.12.2019 (Ext.P7) did not satisfy the requirements of Regulation 2(7) & (8) of the Supply Code. He would also rely on the provisions of Regulation 76(8) of the Supply Code to contend that the application filed (Ext.P7) would not amount an “application” and, at worst, it can only be considered to be an "application form” which do not require the treatment laid down under Regulation 99 (7) & (8) of the Supply Code.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the consumer has taken all that was required under the provisions of the Supply Code, and hence the findings of the Appellate Authority, as upheld by the learned Single Judge, do not require any interference in this intra-court appeal.

8. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.

9. Admittedly, Ext.P7 application seeking an additional requirement of 400 kVA was submitted by the consumer (respondent) on 13.1