SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SHAHUDEEN MUSALIAR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 24916 OF 2019 | WP(C) NO. 23330 OF 2019 | WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.S.Shyam Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, Smt.Surya Binoy, Sri.K.Shaj, SC, Sri.M.Jayakrishnan

The court emphasized that the Kerala State Electricity Board must reassess orders under Section 126 following Supreme Court directives, ensuring due process.

Headnote:The judgment scrutinizes the orders of the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority. The court observes that while unauthorized additional loads were confirmed, the appellate authority's orders were set aside, directing the Board to reassess under Section 126 as per the Supreme Court's principles in the recent judgment. The court emphasizes the Board's obligation to provide notice to petitioners during reassessment. The final ruling supports the petitioner's position regarding rectification of assessment orders.

Table of Content
1. court examines appeals against the electricity appellate authority's orders. (Para 1)
2. court discusses unauthorized loads and need for reassessment per earlier authority judgments. (Para 2 , 3)
3. writ petitions allowed directing fresh orders under section 126. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.24916/2019, 23330/2019, 24913/2019]

In all these cases filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, the orders passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority are under challenge.

2. The appellate authority found that there were unauthorised additional loads in all cases. However, after finding so, the final assessment orders were set aside and the petitioner Board was directed to pass revised assessment orders in the light of the dictum laid down by the High Court in Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Tvm and Others [2017 (3) KHC 563 (DB)], after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners for computation of the penal amounts payable for the unauthorised additional loads. It was further held that no surcharge be levied during the appeal-pending period, and that any excess amount remitted shall be refunded with interest.

3. The learned counsel for the Board submits that the judgment in Sulabha Marketing (Supra) since been reversed by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board and Others v. Thomas Joseph Alias Thomas M.J. and Others [ (2023) 11 SCC 700 ].

4. Given the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, more so when there is no challenge to the finding of the appellate authority on the existence of the unauthorised additional loads, and the dispute is only regarding the manner of assessment under Section 126 . Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed by modifying the orders of the appellate authority. The board is directed to pass orders under Section 126 , in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Thomas Joseph (Supra), with notice to the petitioners. Fresh orders, as directed above, shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petitions are allowed as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top