Electricity usage must align with sanctioned load; unauthorized use attracts penalties under the Electricity Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a consumer of the respondent Electricity Board under the category LT VII(A) commercial tariff, with a sanctioned load of 8kW, in a building used to accommodate employees in the shop. Pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on the premises on 18.04.2017, a provisional assessment for Rs.2,18,518/- was issued on 24.04.2017 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, alleging that the petitioner had connected a total load of 26631 watts as against the sanctioned load of 11320 watts pertaining to the consumer No.17168. The final assessment order was passed on 17.05.2017, revising the provisional assessment to Rs.2,03,877/-, against which the petitioner had approached the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority.

2. The contention of the petitioner was that the premises have been used for domestic purposes, not for the hostel as alleged. The penalisation under LT VII A is also challenged. The petitioner argued based onSulabha Marketing (P) Ltd v. KSEB [2017 (2) KLT SN 77] regarding the quantification of the penal charges.

3. The Board found that there was an unauthorised additional load of 16 kW over and above the sanctioned load of 12 kW, based on which the assessment was made. The appellate authority rightly found that the electricity supply is used for providing the accommodation to the employees, which meant that the usage of electricity is for a different purpose than for which it was authorised, and therefore Section 126 is attracted. The appellate authority also noted that the unauthorised load was admitted. Accordingly, it found that there was an unauthorised load, which attracts Section 126 of the Act. However, the assessment made under the commercial tariff was not sustainable. It is also noted that the energy meter was recording correctly, and therefore the entire consumption recorded from 04/2016 to 03/2017 may be taken for the assessment, and the assessment shall be revised at twice the rate under the LT I domestic tariff for the entire consumption recorded in the energy meter, along with applicable fixed charges. In that view of the matter, the final assessment order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to revise the final assessment at twice the rate under the LT I domestic tariff for the consumption recorded for 04/2016 to

03/2017, along with applicable fixed charges on account of unauthorised use of 26kW within fifteen days. It was further held that no surcharge need be levied during the pendency of the appeal, and any excess amount, if any, paid shall be adjusted.

4. Pursuant to the above, the Board had issued Ext.P6 demanding an amount of Rs.1,71,538/-, which comprises fixed charges of Rs.15,360/- and current charges of Rs.1,86,898/-, and after deducting the amount paid, the balance amount payable was Rs.69,599/-.

5. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order to the extent of directing to revise the assessment at twice the rate under the LT-I domestic tariff.

6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the board, I find that the decision of the appellate authority is perfectly in order and the direction is strictly in terms of Section 126 (6) of the Electricity Act , 2003. The judgment of this Court inSulabha Marketing (P) Ltd v. KSEB [2017 (2) KLT SN 77], relied on by the petitioner, was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J [2022 KHC online 7291]. In view of the above, the impugned order calls for no interference at all, and the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-