Kerala High Court
P.M.Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 29 August, 2016
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/7TH BHADRA, 1938
OP.No. 22726 of 2002 (E)
-------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
P.M.VARGHESE,PARTNER,
MANAVATTY SILK CENTRE,
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VAIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
ELECTRICAL, MAJOR SECTION, CENTRAL ERNAKULAM.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS) H.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. REJI JOSEPH
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24/6/2016, THE COURT ON 29-08-2016 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
bp
OP.No. 22726 of 2002 (E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT DT 11/8/2000 MADE BY THE R1
UNDER REGULATION 42(D) OF CSEE.
P2: COPY OF THE BILL FOR THE MONTH OF JULY, 2000.
P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 30/8/2000 IN OP 25203/2000.
P4: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R3
DT 28/6/2001.
P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DT 27/6/2001 OF THE PETITIONER TO
THE R3.
P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DT 30/5/2002 OF THE R4 IN THE
APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER.
P7: COPY OF THE DRAWING PREPARED BY THE CONTRACTORS
POWERTEK ASSOCIATES' AND SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTRICAL
INSEPCTORATE.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
bp
P.V.ASHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
O.P No.22726 of 2002-E
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a consumer under the 2nd respondent. The sanctioned load of electrical connection in the name of the petitioner was 15 KW. On 5.8.2000, the regional unit of Anti Power Theft Squad (`APTS' for short), Ernakulam inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was using 30 KW of connected load without any permission from the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board' for short). On the basis of this detection, Ext.P1 bill was issued on 11.08.2000, demanding a sum of Rs.68,507/- re-assessing the petitioner for the additional load of 15KW, under Regulation 42
(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 (`Conditions' for short). Producing Ext.P2 bill for the month of July, 2000 the petitioner submitted that the normal bill amount used to be a sum of Rs.675/-. As against Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted an appeal and immediately thereupon approached this Court in O.P.25203 of 2003 which was disposed of by Ext.P3 O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 2 judgment dated 30.08.2000 directing disposal of the appeal and also directing the Board to receive payment of the normal bill amount on condition that the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the amount assessed in Ext.P1. The petitioner submits that he had submitted an application for regularisation of the excess load on 11.10.2000 and he had also removed 6 split ACs of 1.5 ton capacity in the second week of August, 2000. But the respondent/Board on receipt of the application for regularisation required him to dismantle the split AC and window AC. The petitioner informed them that since he wanted to install generators in the premises, he was unable to dismantle or remove those units. Therefore, it is his case that the Board officials refused to treat the excess load as disconnected and issued the subsequent bills imposing penal rates. The petitioner again approached this Court filing O.P.No.27249/2000 challenging the bill for August, 2000. That O.P was disposed of on 25.09.2000 directing the respondents to dispose of the appeal submitted by the petitioner, accepting the admitted amount towards the bill and staying realisation of the bill amount till then. The bill issued for the month of September, 2000 was challenged in O.P No.30032/2000. The petitioner filed O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 3 O.P.No.33285/2000 and O.P.No.103/2001. Those Original Petitions were also disposed of directing disposal of appeals filed by the petitioner, staying the realisation of bill amounts on conditions fixed. It is stated that in O.P No.103 of 2001, which was in respect of the bill for November, 2000, the realisation of the entire amount was stayed. The petitioner further submits that the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector accorded temporary sanction for installation of generator set, as per his order dt.7.5.2001. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P6 order dt.30.05.2002. It was at that stage that, the petitioner filed this Original Petition, challenging Ext.P6 order rejecting the appeal. The petitioner filed I.A. No.12017 of 2015 seeking amendment of the original petition and got the same amended incorporating additional facts, grounds and prayer with respect to challenge against Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions. It is his contention in the amended O.P that, Regulation 42(d) is beyond the scope of the provisions contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 inasmuch as unguided and unlimited power have been given to the Board and the same is arbitrary. It is contended that under this Regulation, connected load without prior permission of the Board is treated as misuse of energy by fiction, even if the O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 4 customer pays for the actual energy consumed and this misuse of energy is billed at 3 times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous six months from the date of detection of misuse. It is further stated that the penalty imposed under the regulations is not provided for under Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, under which the Board has framed the Regulations; but Section 79(j) of the 1948 Act enables the Board only to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder to provide for principles governing the supply of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees under Section 49 and the preamble of the Regulations show that these Regulations are issued for prescribing fees/charges for various items and forms. Referring to this preamble to the regulations, it is contended that the Regulations cannot be intended to define offences or to impose penalty of any description and the Board does not have any such power to incorporate any provisions for imposing penalty or fine under Section 79(j) of the Electricity Supply Act. Therefore, Regulation 42(d) which provides for imposing a penalty/punishment on a consumer for misuse of energy by charging a higher tariff which is twice that of normal charge in the previous six months and O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 5 hence Regulation 42(d) is issued without any authority. Sections 39 to 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides for the criminal offences and the punishments thereof. It also provides under Section 44(d) for the punishment for improper use of energy of a licensee as well as for connection of meters to any other meters or apparatus, unauthorized reconnection etc. Pointing out the offences as well as the punishment provided for it under Section 44, it is contended that imposing a higher tariff is not a punishment provided for improper use of electricity; at the same time, what is provided for is only a prosecution for imposing punishment for misuse or improper use of electrical energy before a court of law which can always be on adjudication by the criminal court. According to the petitioner, Regulation 42(d) defines a new offence and prescribes a penalty without any authority.
2. The petitioner got another contention that the additional load was detected in July, 2000 at the time when the shop was renovated, when he was about to inform the Board regarding the additional load immediately on completion of the renovation; in support of that claim he had produced several materials before the appellate authority; he had already O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 6 disconnected the additional load and removed the 6 split ACs of 1.510 capacity and one unit AC of the same capacity and applied for regularization of excess load. But his request was not acceded to, insisting for dismantling/removal of those equipments. The petitioner further points out that the electrical inspectorate accorded sanction subsequently, when it permitted installation of generator; the connected load thereupon came down to 13.5 KW.
3. The Board did not file any additional counter affidavit against the amended O.P. In the counter affidavit filed before amendment they explained the irregularities detected in the inspection by APTS; bills were issued in terms of regulation 42
(d) since excess load was found connected without permission; appeal was disposed of in accordance with law after considering all the relevant contentions; petitioner had never applied for additional power prior to the inspection by the APTS on 5.8.2000; even though he had kept the equipment disconnected, he had not dismantled or removed it and he had every opportunity to reconnect those equipments to the Board supply system at any time; therefore, the Board had to consider the disconnected load also as unauthorized excess load; even though O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 7 the petitioner had obtained sanction from the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector for installation of generator set, he did not obtain sanction from the Board and therefore penal rates were being charged in his monthly bills; the petitioner did not even submit an application in the prescribed form with declaration for obtaining sanction to install generator as provided in Section 44 of the Electricity Supply Act, even after intimation from the Board; as per the orders in force, the Board give sanction for installing generator set only for standing operation during the power failure; but the request of the petitioner was for installing generator set for simultaneous operation; the petitioner had to obtain sanction for power allocation for the entire connected load, for which he never applied; subsequent to the judgment in O.P.No.103 of 2011, the 3rd respondent had inspected the premises when it was found that the AC units were not dismantled from the premises; the then Deputy Chief Engineer- the appellate authority had passed orders on 31.5.2002, after hearing the parties and considering all the evidence and materials before him; the 3rd respondent had inspected the premises on 19.08.2002 in which the connected load was found to be 8.692 kw which was less than the sanctioned load and O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 8 therefore penalization was stopped from 8/2002 onwards; and that the petitioner had not intimated the Board about the dismantling of the AC units.
4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit disputing the averments in the counter affidavit stating that the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector had already given final sanction to energise the electrical installation on 25.6.2000 and sanction was sought from the Board as per letter dated 25.5.2001.
5. I heard Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board. The contention of the petitioner is that the regulations have been issued in excess of the powers conferred under Section 79
(j) of the Electricity Supply Act. When Sections 39 to 56 of the Electricity Act, 1910 deal with improper use of electricity, its punishments, etc. and Section 44 specifically deals with the punishment for different kinds of improper use of electricity, there is no provision provided for realising thrice the charges from the consumer, as provided in Regulation 42(d). This contention is raised by the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Aluminium Co. v. KSEB [AIR 1975 SC 1967]. At the same time, the learned counsel for the Board O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 9 furnished a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s.Raj Kamal Spinners v. P.S.E.Board [AIR 1983 P. & H. 378]. According to her, the issue is covered by the said judgment and Regulation 42(d) which authorises realisation of charges thrice the rate of the bills of preceding 6 months is issued perfectly within the power and authority conferred on the Board; the petitioner who misused the electrical energy cannot be permitted to use the same at the normal rate. The question considered by the P. & H. High Court was with respect to the unauthorized use of electricity over and above sanctioned load. Referring to the provisions contained in Section 79 as well as Section 49, the P. &H. High Court found that the Board was perfectly within its powers to demand enhanced charges. However, there was no challenge as against the regulations based on which such charges were realized as in this case.
6. As the main contention of the petitioner is that regulation 42(d) is beyond the legislative competence inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as well as the Electricity Supply Act, 1948; power under 42(d) is unguided and uncontrolled, etc, it is O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 10 necessary to examine the relevant provisions contained in the Conditions with reference to the relevant provisions contained in the respective Acts.
7. The bills under dispute were issued in accordance with regulation 42(d). Regulation 42(d) of the conditions reads as follows:
"42. Misuse of Energy:- (a) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx
(d) If the consumer exceeds the contracted load without prior permission of the Board or energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff is used without the Board's knowledge and approval for a different purpose not contemplated in the contract for supply and for which higher tariff is applicable coming under misuse of energy within the meaning of the I.E. Act, 1910. Misuse of energy will be billed at three times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous six months from the date of detection of misuse unless there are convincing reasons for adopting different periods and supply disconnected without notice. The imposition of this higher rate will not relieve the consumer from any penalties imposed by law.
xxxx xxxx xxxx From the preamble of the regulations it is clear that, the regulations are intended to regulate the conditions of supply of electrical energy prescribing fee/charges for various items and forms. It also provides that these regulations are issued in exercise of provisions contained in Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and other enabling provisions under the O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 11 statutes. Regulation 42 is intended to check malpractises and to see that regular supply to the consumers is not interfered with. Section 79(j) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948 reads as follows:
"79. Power to make regulations:- The Board may by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
(j) principles governing the supply of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees under section 49;
xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx"
8. Regulation 42(d) provides for the conditions which a consumer would be subjected to in the event of misuse of energy. A consumer is not expected to use electricity without the knowledge and approval of the Board for a purpose other than for which it is supplied. He cannot also without prior permission exceed his contracted load. He shall not keep connected to the Board supply system any apparatus which the Board deems to interfere with or affect supply injuriously to other consumers.
.
O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 12
9. Under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Board is empowered to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and rules made under it. Clause (j) thereof empowers the Board to make regulations laying down the principles governing the supply of electricity to persons other than licensees under Section 49. Clause (k) empowers the Board to make regulations in respect of any other matters arising out of the Board's function under the Act for which it is necessary or expedient to make regulation. Clause k of Section 79 reads as follows:
"Section 79.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(k) any other matter arising out of the Board's functions under this Act for which it is necessary or expedient to make regulations."
Section 49 relates to the sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees. It reads as follows:
49. Provision for the sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees. --(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and or regulations, if any, made in this behalf, the Board may supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon such terms and conditions, as the Board thinks fit and may for the purposes of such supply frame uniform tariffs.
(2) In fixing the uniform tariffs, the Board shall have regard to all or any or the following factors, namely--
O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 13
(a) the nature of the supply and the purposes for which it is required;
(b) the co-ordinated development of the supply and distribution of electricity within the State in the most efficient and economical manner, with particular reference to such development in areas not for the time being served or adequately served by the licensee;
(c) the simplification and standardisation of methods and rates of charges for such supplies;
(d) the extension and cheapening of supplies of electricity to sparsely developed areas.
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall derogate from the power of the Board, if it considers it necessary or expedient to fix different tariffs. for the supply of electricity to any person not being a licensee, having regard to the geographical position of any area, the nature of the supply and purpose for which supply is required and any relevant factors.
(4) In fixing the tariff and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity, the Board shall not show undue preference to any person."
The Board is empowered thereby to supply electricity to any person other than a licensee in accordance with the terms and conditions the Board thinks fit. Towards the supply of electricity, Board has to frame uniform tariffs. Sub section 2 provides for the relevant factors to be considered while fixing uniform tariffs. Apart from nature of the supply and purposes for which it is required, distribution of electricity within the State in the most efficient and economical manner, rates of charges for the supply, etc. should also form such factors for consideration. At the same time, sub section 3 empowers the Board to fix different tariffs for O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 14 the supply of electricity to any person, in case it considers necessary or expedient, having regard to the geographical position of any area or nature of supply and purpose for which it is required and any other relevant factors. It further provides that the Board shall not show any undue preference. In effect the framing of regulations, fixing of tariffs, etc. should be to achieve supply and distribution of electricity in the State in a most efficient and economical manner.
10. Coming to the provisions contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 it can be seen that Section 20 of the Act 1910 enables the Board to enter the premises of any consumer for the purpose of inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electricity supply lines, meters, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of energy which belong to the Board or to ascertain the amount of energy supply or the electrical quantity contained in the supply. It also enables the Board to take away or cut off supply in electricity supply lines, meters, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to it where supply of energy is no longer required. It can also examine and test the electrical wires, fittings, apparatus, etc. for the use of energy belonging to consumer. Proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act , 1910 provides O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 15 that, no person shall use the energy supplied to him so as unduly or improperly to interfere with the safety or efficient working of the licensee's electric supply lines or other works or the supply of energy by the licensee to any other person. Sub section 2 of Section 23 of the Act provides that, no consumer shall except with the consent in writing of the licensee use energy supplied to him under one method of charging in a manner in which a higher method of charging is in force. Section 24 provides for disconnection of supply to a consumer, who does not pay any charge for energy or any sum other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may disconnect the supply of electricity to him, after giving him 7 days' notice in writing, without prejudice to right of recovery.
11. Section 24 of the Act 1910 reads as follows:
24. Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge.-- [(1)] Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purposes cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer.O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 16
(2)Where any difference or dispute which by or under this Act is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector, has been referred to the Inspector before notice as aforesaid has been give by the licensee, the licensee shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section until the Inspector has given his decision:
Provided that the prohibition contained in this sub-section shall not apply in any case in which the licensee has made a request in writing to the consumer for a deposit with the Electrical Inspector of the amount of the licensee's charges or other sums in dispute or for the deposit of the licensee's further charges for energy as they accrue, and the consumer has failed to comply with such request.
(emphasis supplied)
12. Thus Section 24 provides for disconnection of electricity for non-payment of not only the charges of electricty used by the consumer but non-payment of other sums also in respect of supply of energy to him.
13. From the above provisions, it can be seen that under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, the Board can fix the terms and conditions for supply of electricity as it thinks fit. The purpose of fixing uniform tariff is evident from subsection 1 of Section 49. In order to achieve that purpose and to see that the entire distribution system is operated properly without interference by other consumers, subsection 3 enables the Board to fix different tariffs also. Regulations can be framed under clause (j) and (k) of the Supply Act in repect of the principles governing the supply of electricity and any other matter arising O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 17 out of Board's functions, which the Board feel expedient to frame. The provisions contained in Sections 20 to 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 provide for the measures to see that the supply of energy by it is used properly for the pupose for which it is given and to control the misuse; the duties of the consumers to be disciplined by not involving in any malpractices and without interfering with the efficient working of supply lines and to act within the limits permitted by the Board,with due regard to the right of other consumers. In this view of the matter, the regulation 42(d) can only be seen to have been issued perfectly consistent with the provisions contained in the Act and there is absolutely no inconsistency. Section 24 indicates that, Board is competent to realise not only the charges for the energy but other sums also in respect of supply of energy iteslf. Therefore, it is perfectly within the powers of the Board to make a regulation to realise additional payment as a measure to check the misuse of electricity. The proceedings under Regulation 42
(d) are independent proceedings, over and above the prosecution proceedings provided for in the Act, but permitted under the provisions of the Act by making regulations. It cannot be said that such realisation of thrice the charges amounts to a penalty O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 18 not enurumerated and for an offence newly defined. It cannot be said that, a consumer cannot be asked to make additional payment by way of regulations when he is found to indulge in pilferage, theft or other malpractices, except by way of criminal proceedings. A provision providing for criminal liability will not dilute the power of the Board to frame regulations to check malpractices irrespective of the criminal proceedings. It is the duty of the Board to supply electricity throughout the State, and to see that the consumers are able to use the same in a most efficient and economical manner, for which it is necessary to prevent unauthorised use of electricity without its permission. The loss suffered by it on account of the malpractises has to be recouped by it. In this process, it can proceed for disconnection of the supply and also demand additional charges.
14. It cannot be said that the power under Clause 42(d) of conditions is unguided or uncontrolled. A perusal of the regulation 42(d) will reveal that it provides for the circumstances under which it can be invoked and how it can be invoked. There is no question of any unguided or uncontrolled power. There cannot be any dispute over the fact that the regulations are statutory. I have found that the grounds alleged for assailing the O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 19 regulation, are unsustainable. It is found to be within the competenece of the Board and consistent with the provisions of both the Acts. There is no violation of any of the provisions contained in the Statute or the Constitution of India.
15. Every consumer is being supplied electricity on the basis of his application and after executing an agreement/consent letter to the effect that he will not in any manner interfere with the normal supply of electricity. He also agrees for action under the conditions of supply of electricity along with his application for supply of electricity. In order to check theft of electricity and such other malpractices employed by consumers by adopting unlawful means, the Board is empowered to lay down regulations to curb and control it. Such regulations cannot be said to be beyond the powers conferred under the Act or inconsistent with the Act.
16. The question considered by the apex court in Indian Aluminium Co. (supra), relied on by the petitioner, was regarding the enhancement of rate of tariffs contrary to what was agreed in the contract. Of course it was held therein that, there cannot be any unilateral enhancement and the provisions contained in the Act do not provide for the same. But in this O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 20 case, there is no reference to any contract entered into. Moreover, every consumer is getting the supply of electricity only when he submits an application. The form of application provided for is given in appendix A to Annexure VI under part II to the Electricity Rules. In this form, there is a specific provision to the effect that the consumer agrees to be bound by the provisions containied in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy laid down by the Board and the provisions of Class VI of the Schedule to the Indian Electrict Act, 1910. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in respect of an entirely different provision and different circumstance which are not at all available in the present case and the principles laid down therein are not applicable in this case.
17. Chapter V of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 provides for the general conditions relating to supply and use of energy. The provisions contained in sub section 2 of Section 23 and sub section 3 of Section 49 Electricity Supply Act, 1948 as well as Section 79(j) and (k) of the Electricity Supply Act empower the Board to take all effective measures to see that there is uniform distribution of electricity among all its consumers. The consumers are equally bound to see that they O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 21 are not causing any obstruction to the licensee in discharging its functions to effectuate economic and standardised distribution and supply of electricity to its consumers.
18. In this context it is relevant to note that the regulations framed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board which provided for discontinuance of electricity as well as for penal assessment came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P.S.E.B [(1998) 4 SCC 470], where also one of the contentions raised was that the regulations were beyond the powers conferred under the Electricity Supply Act as well as the Electricity Act. After analysing various provisions contained in the Electricity Supply Act, Electricity Act as well as the regulations therein and the purpose for which those enactments are made and regulations are laid down, the Apex Court found that the Electricity Board is empowered to make regulations in order to check malpractices and such measures to regulate the malpractices would not be ultravires or inconsistent with the provisions contained in the main enactments. In the present case also, what is intended and provided for by the regulations 1990 are to check the unauthorised use of electricity by adopting impermissible means O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 22 whereby much loss would be caused to the KSEB as well as the general public. Regulation 42(d) only provides for certain precautions to be observed by the consumers in order to see that the illegal action of one consumer does not affect the other consumers and the entire system of the supply of electricity in the State. The regulations only provide that, consumer shall not keep connected to the Board supply system any apparatus interfereing with or affecting the supply injuriouysly to other consumers. It further provides that, the consumers availing three phase supply should keep their load balanced without exceeding the maximum difference in current by 5%. It further provides that, the use of supply given to a consumer shall not affect prejudicially to the Board in any manner. Further in clause 42 (d) it provides that, use of energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff when used for another purpose without prior permission of the Board, it will invite realisation of higher tariff as the same would amount to misuse of energy within the meaning of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and would be billed at 3 times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous 6 months from the date of detection of misuse unless there are convincing reason for adopting different periods O.P(C) No.22726 of 2002-E 23 and it also would invite disconnection of supply without notice. It further provides that, the realisation of additional charges and disconnection would be apart from other provisions and penalties provided under the Act. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd's case (supra), Regulation 42(d) of the conditions can only be upheld.
19. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal after considering all the contentions, on being satisfied that there was no circumstance which warranted a deviation in the case of the petitioner in respect of the bills issued. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any vailid claim. I do not find any infirmity in Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions.
Under the above circumstances, I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/