The petitioner says that she is running a hospital under the

name 'Kerala ENT Research Foundation (KERF)', which consumes

electricity under a connection afforded to them by the Kerala

State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB), with consumer No.7521

under the LT VI G tariff. It appears that on 5.10.2017, the Anti

Power Theft Squade (APTS) inspected the premises of the

petitioner to detect that she was consuming unauthorised load as

also that one of the phases in her electric supply meter was

defective. On such basis, the KSEB short assessed her to an

amount of Rs.4,02,475/- through Ext.P2, which was subsequently

revised, as per Ext.P4, to Rs.2,04,170/-.

2. The petitioner says that she challenged the afore demand

before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the KSEB,

which rejected it through Ext.P6 and that she, therefore,

preferred an appeal before the State Electricity Ombudsman,

which finally culminated in Ext.P7 order. She further says that

she had also taken up the issue of unauthorised load before the

Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority through Ext.P5,

which, according to her, finally has led to the same being

regularised and that she has paid off all applicable charges and

penalties for the said purposes. The petitioner alleges that Ext.P7

3

order of the Electricity Ombudsman issued with respect to the

alleged defective phase in her electric meter, though has given

her substantial relief, is nevertheless in error with respect to two

other issues. She, therefore, impugns Ext.P7 to that extent.

3. I have heard Sri.Jani.A., the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri.Ganesh Sudheer Kumar, the learned

standing counsel for the KSEB.

4. Sri.Jani.A., the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner shows me that in Ext.P7, the short assessment bill

raised against his client has been set aside; but liberty has been

given to the KSEB to issue a fresh bill for a period of 24 months

prior to April, 2014, by taking the consumption as being 2820

units, which is the average consumption for the period from

January, 2014 to March, 2014. The learned counsel submits that

this direction in Ext.P7 is in error and he relies on Regulations

152 and 155 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 in

substantiation of his assertions.

5. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the period during which one phase of the meter

was found defective has not been conclusively established and

therefore, that the provisions of the first Proviso to Regulation

152(1) would apply, thus that the period of short collection of

electricity charges will have to be limited to 12 months and not for

4

a period of 24 months as is now fixed. He further says that as per

Regulation 155(7), since the period of unauthorised use of

electricity has not been conclusively established, the assessment

shall be done only for a period which is limited to 12 months

immediately preceding the date of inspection. He says that Ext.P7

was wrong in these two counts and further asserts that the

subsequent Ext.P8 bill issued by the Electricity Board is not

merely in violation of Ext.P7; but has been issued without making

a fresh assessment as ordered therein.

6. Sri.Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel

for the Electricity Board submits that the submission of the

petitioner, that the period during which the unauthorised use of

electricity has not been conclusively proved, is wholly incorrect

because he says that the data downloaded from the energy meter

conclusively proves that the 'B' phase reading was missing from

April, 2014 onwards. He says that the consumption details from

the downloaded data would establish this beyond doubt and he

says that the Ombudsman has also relied upon this data, which

according to him, has not been in any manner challenged or

assailed by the petitioner, and therefore, that E