When a court explicitly directs an authority to reconsider a decision in light of specific judicial precedents, the authority must demonstrably address such precedents; failure to do so warrants judicial intervention under Article 226, notwithstanding the availability of alternative statutory remedies.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Low Tension (LT) consumer of electricity for industrial purposes. According to the petitioner, the tariff applicable to him is LT IVA, and the contract demand was 133 kVA with a connected load of 119 kW. In the month of September, 2017, there was an inspection by the Anti-Power Theft Squad at the premises of the petitioner, and an unauthorised additional load of 41 kW was allegedly detected. Ext.P1 mahazar and Ext.P2 provisional bill were drawn up, and the petitioner was permitted to raise objections to the same. The petitioner filed his objections to the provisional bill. The objections filed by the petitioner are on record as Ext.P4. The 2^nd respondent, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner, has issued Ext.P5 proceedings along with Ext.P6 final invoice demanding a sum of Rs.19,50,026/- on the basis that the petitioner has to pay charges and penalty at rates applicable to a High Tension (HT) industrial connection. Challenging Exts.P5 and P6, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.39281 of 2017. This Court, by Ext.P7 judgment, allowed the writ petition and quashed Exts. P5 and P6. This Court also directed the 2^nd respondent to consider the matter afresh with due regard to the judgments of this Court in W.P. (C) No.12047 of 2014 and connected cases (judgment dated 16.12.2020 in Jose T.P. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. And Others) and in W.P.(C) No.12401 of 2014 and connected cases (judgment dated 16.12.2020 in V.M.Hassan v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. And Others). This Court specifically directed the 2^nd respondent to pass fresh orders after taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to above. Relevant portion of Ext.P7 reads thus:

“Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Exts. P5 and P6 are quashed. The 2^nd respondent shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner clearly pointing out the reasons for proposing the levy of penalty and other charges on the petitioner, treating the petitioner as an HT consumer, and permitting the petitioner to raise objections to such proposal. The 2^nd respondent shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, as directed above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be given time to file his objections to the said notice, and thereafter the matter shall be adjudicated by the 2^nd respondent in accordance with the law. The 2^nd respondent shall, while considering the matter, have due regard to the judgments of this Court referred to above. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, and it will be open to the 2^nd respondent to pass fresh orders after taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to above. Any coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner for non-payment of Ext.P2 provisional bill and Ext.P6 final bill shall be kept in abeyance till fresh orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent as directed above. Since Exts.P5 and P6 are being quashed for the violation of principles of natural justice, the plea of alternate remedy is not a bar to entertaining this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

2. Pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment, the 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P9 order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act). Ext.P9 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18150 of 2025. In the said writ petition, it was contended, inter alia, that though this Court in Ext.P7 specifically directed the Board to issue a notice informing the petitioner why the the petitioner has been charged as an HT consumer, no such notice was iss