The court reinforced that statutory procedures for electrical billing must be adhered to, and technical determinations by relevant regulatory bodies are generally upheld unless proven arbitrary.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.22214 of 2022. Appellant was the Petitioner in the said W.P(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellant, a consumer of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), challenging Exts.P13 and P15 Orders rendered by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and the Electricity Ombudsman, respectively, whereby the challenge raised by him against the short assessment bill and the demand notice issued by the KSEB with respect to the electrical connection to his ice manufacturing unit were rejected.

inter 3. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the W.P.(C) alia holding that the method of reassessment adopted was rational, technically supported, and consistent with the statutory framework governing recovery of undercharged amounts and that the CGRF as well as the Ombudsman had duly considered the matter in detail and had arrived at right conclusions. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed.

4. Heard Sri.K.P.Rajeevan, Advocate for the appellant and Smt.Mitha Sudhindran, Advocate, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-KSEB.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the W.P.(C) and had overlooked the contentions put forth. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that though the Ombudsman in Ext.P15 had concluded that even though Regulation 113(6) clearly spelt about the field inspection and testing of meters, and specifies that the periodical inspection or testing of the meters have to be carried out as per the schedule therein, mandates of the Supply Code is not seen to be complied by the licensee ie., the KSEB. The officials of the KSEB, as noted by the Ombudsman, could take monthly readings to raise the bills to consumers from the Time of Day (TOD) meters, such as the one installed at the appellant's premises, by scrolling the reading in the meters. However, they followed a different course of action whereby the method of billing is done as per the provisions of Regulation 125(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, whereby an average consumption of the past three billing cycles immediately preceding the date of the meter being found defective is taken. It is pointed out that, insofar as the Ombudsman had, after the finding of the CGRF, clearly noted that the manner in which the periodic inspection and testing of the meters are to be conducted in situations where the meters are defective, and the same had not been complied with by the Board, based on the said conclusions drawn but not seen applied to the case at hand, Ext.P13 as well Ext.P15 orders were to be set aside. The learned Single Judge, it is submitted had erred in not taking note of the same and in disallowing the prayer to quash Exts. P13 and P15.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and that the W.A. is devoid of merit. She submits that as rightly noted by the CGRF and the Ombudsman, there was no defect whatsoever in the meter, and the defect, if any, was with the inspection of the APTS. It had been unequivocally concluded that the inspection revealed that patina (oxidation) had developed at the connecting point of the phase wire-tapping voltage from the R-phase to the meter, which was due to weathering and atmospheric conditions. The anomaly was not with the energy meter itself but with the external wiring connection that supplied voltage to the meter, and it was rectified by replacing the affected phase wire, and after cleaning and re-fixing the terminal. Thereafter, the meter began to record accurately. Thus, the fact that it was not a case of a defective meter or faulty meter within the meaning of Regulation 125 of the Supply Code had been revealed in inspection and had been duly noted both by