Kerala High Court
Sreedharan C.T vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 26 December, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY,THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 366 of 2013 (U)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
SREEDHARAN C.T.,
S/O.NARAYANAN, MAMBATTUKUNNU, POST MUKKOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
SRI.K.R.RANJITH
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
KOZHIKODE ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673011.
3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE-673001.
BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 366 of 2013 (U)
------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 26.12.2007 PREPARED BY AUDIT OFFICE OF
1ST RESONDENT.
P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
23.3.2012,
P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED UNDER SECTION 127 IF
ELECTRICITY ACT 2003 DATED 14.9.2012.
P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY
DATED 16.11.2012
P5: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 16.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P6: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 16.8/.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P7: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 16.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P8: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 15.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P9: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 20.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P10: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 16.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATEED 03.12.12 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
* * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.No.366 of 2013
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of July 2016
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 and seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay the bills raised by the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') for Rs.50,812/- and Rs.2,34,758/-.
2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner is a consumer of the Board with consumer No.12280. On 29/11/2007, the Regional Audit Officer inspected the building and found that there is short assessment of bill and unauthorised use of additional load. A penal bill was issued for unauthorised additional load of 9KW and shortfall in assessment from June 2007 to June 2008. Final assessment was passed by the Assistant Engineer issuing a short assessment bill dated 05/11/2011 for Rs.50,812/-. Petitioner, along with the tenant of the building, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent. In the appeal, the petitioner also challenged another bill dated 31/03/2012 claiming Rs.2,34,758/-. The appellate authority, dismissed the appeal confirming the W.P.C.No.366/2013 2 demand. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the appellate authority. It is contended that though the inspection was on November 2007, additional bill for Rs.2,34,758/- was issued only on 14/3/2012. It is contended that the usual bills were issued regularly after inspecting the meter. No objection was raised by the officials at the relevant time. Bill was calculated on the basis of connected load and therefore the demand was totally erroneous.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that, on inspection of the premises of the petitioner, it was noticed that the connected load in the premises is 15KW as against th registered load of 6KW which resulted in an additional load of 9 KW. He was penalised and directed to regularise the additional load. As per Regulation 51(2) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, if the unauthorised additional load is detected in the premises, penalty for the same will continue until the load is regularised or removed. In the present case, petitioner failed either to remove or regularise the additional load and therefore the liability to pay penalty for the additional will continue. However, due to inadvertent omission, penalty for additional load from June 2007 to June 2008 was not calculated. W.P.C.No.366/2013 3 The said omission was noticed on the inspection of the audit party and thereafter penalty bill for additional load was issued and since the additional load was not regularised, penal bill of Rs.50,812/- was issued on the consumer on 05/11/2011. It is further contended that the petitioner applied for regularisation of the load only on 08/12/2011.
Learned counsel for the respondent, placed reliance on the judgment dated 17/07/2014 in W.A.No.975/2013 (Manager, Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Studies v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others] wherein at paragraph 5 and 6, it is held as under:
"5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that following the inspection, once assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act is completed for the period specified in the section, any demand for the subsequent period cannot be made unless that is preceded by yet another inspection and assessment. Learned counsel also contended that by Ext.P14 in W.P.C.No.8779/11, further demand was made following the audit objection, which, according to him is also impermissible, in view of W.P.C.No.366/2013 4 the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment in Jomy Thomas Manjooran v. KSEB [2013(1)KLT 595].
6. In so far as the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the inspection by the APTS was held on 13/11/2007. It was following that inspection that Exts.P9 and P9(a) demands challenged in W.P.C.No.13129/2008 were issued. Once inspection is held and demand is also raised, in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 51 of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, respondents are entitled to continue the penal demand until the unauthorised load is removed or regularised as per rules."
4. It cannot be disputed that there cannot be any dispute regarding the additional connected load which came to be penalised. The penalty is possible in terms with the regulations and as held by the Division Bench, unless it is regularised, it is open for the authorities to issue the bill. According to the respondents, the bills were issued when the application for regularization was not submitted. The application was submitted only on 08/12/2011 produced as Ext.R1(a). The appellate W.P.C.No.366/2013 5 authority also found that the petitioner is liable to pay penalty for non-compliance with the directions. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned bills issued by the respondent authorities.
Since there is no basis for the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr