The petitioner impugns Exhibit P7 order of the Kerala State

Electricity Appellate Authority, as per which, the proceedings of the

competent authority of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to

assess the petitioner for unauthorised use of electricity has been

upheld. The petitioner also impugns Exhibit P8 consequential bill and

contends that the amounts shown there in are not payable by him.

2. Going by the pleadings on record, the petitioner's assertion is

that he is enjoying an electric connection under the subsidy provided by

the Government of Kerala for agricultural purposes but that the Anti

Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the KSEB allegedly found on 12.06.2015

that he was using this electric connection for the purpose of pumping

water to a nearby property owned by his son, where a residential

construction was being made. On such basis, an assessment was made

against the petitioner and he alleges that certain facts have been

allegedly taken for granted by the authorities without any proof, in

assuming that he had violated the subsidy granted and contends that

the conclusions against him have been arrived at without affording him

3

any opportunity of rebutting the validity of the presumption of the

contents of Exhibit P1 mahazar and he consequently prays that the

Appellate Authority be directed to reconsider the matter, after affording

him a reasonable opportunity.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB submits that the

petitioner's allegations are in the realm of factual circumstances and

that there is no challenge to Exhibit P1 mahazar even in this writ

petition. He contends that Exhibit P1 was recorded by the APTS on the

date of inspection and that the signature of the petitioner's son was

obtained therein clearly establishing its credibility and therefore, that

no fault can be attributed to Exhibit P7 order of the Appellate Authority

in having accepted the validity and accuracy of the mahazar.

4. Even though I hear the learned Standing Counsel as afore, the

fact remains that a specific contention has been raised by the petitioner

that his son had signed Exhibit P1 mahazar under duress and therefore,

that he may be given an opportunity of proving the facts contrary to

what is stated in the mahazar.

5. Since the petitioner is only seeking a limited relief of being

given an opportunity to rebut the presumption, which is normally

available to Exhibit P1 mahazar, I see no reason why he should be

4

denied the opportunity, particularly because, if he is able to establish

through cogent and reliable evidence before the Appellate Authority as

to his assertion that he did not violate the subsidy given by the

Government, no prejudice would be caused to the KSEB, particularly

because such amounts are paid by the Government and have already

been received by the KSEB, thus causing no loss to the KSEB at all. If at

all there is any such loss, it would be only to the Government, but I am

not saying that this will preclude the KSEB from taking action against

the petitioner, since unauthorised misuse of the electric supply and

subsidy would also make the petitioner liable to act in law. However,

that said, I am also of the firm view that the KSEB would offer no

specific detriment, if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to rebut

the validity of Exhibit P1 mahazar, so that the truth can be finally

established.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct

the Appellate Authority to reconsider the issues involved in Exhibit P7

order, after affording an opportunity of being heard, as also to produce

relevant and cogent materials by the petitioner and thereafter, decide

whether any modification is required to Exhibit P7.

5

Since I am not setting aside Exhibit P7, I clarify that the parties

herein will adhere to the decision to be taken by the Appellate Authority

in terms of this judgment, subject to their remedies in law.

The exercise ordered herein shall be c