Kerala High Court
C.M. Manoj Kumar vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 12 December, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/6TH BHADRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 21285 of 2014 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
C.M. MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.C.A.MANI, PROPRIETOR, CCN CABLE NET WORK
NADATHARA FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING
VALAKKAVU P.O., MOOLAYAM, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA
SMT.R.BINDU
SRI.M.S.KALESH
SMT.A.V.PRIYA
SRI.JOHNSON JOSE PANJIKKARAN
SRI.SANIL KUNJACHAN
RESPONDENTS:-:
----------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
NADATHARA ELECTRICAL SECTION
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NADATHARA - 680 751.
BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-08-2014, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JV
WP(C).No. 21285 of 2014 (I)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 12.12.2007.
EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE BILL DATED 13.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF C.C.1090 OF 2007 DATED 15.12.2007 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2014 IN C.C.1090 OF 2007
OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
THRISSUR.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : N I L
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
JV
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 21285 of 2014
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is conducting 'cable network operation', for which he had availed electric connection with Consumer No.11314 under the 2nd respondent, in a shop room. During an inspection conducted by the 'Anti-Power Theft Squad' (APTS) at the premises where the connection is provided, it was detected that additional unauthorised load was connected and energy was being consumed by looping directly from the service wire, in a manner extracting the energy by escaping recording in the energy meter. Alleging theft of electricity, the connection was disconnected. The materials used for looping the energy was taken into custody, after preparing Ext.P1 cite Mahazar. Pursuant to the inspection, penalty was imposed against the petitioner through Ext.P2 bill demanding a sum of Rs. 1,91,640/-. The petitioner challenged the assessment in a complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, W.P.(C) No.21285 /2014 2 Thrissur. Through Ext.P4 order, the said forum had dismissed the complaint finding that it is not maintainable before the said forum. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 bill in this Writ Petition contending that it is totally unsustainable and was issued in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
2. Evidently Ext.P2 is an assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner could have raised objection against the said assessment before the 2nd respondent, as contemplated under Section 126 (2) and (3). Instead, the petitioner had approached a wrong forum challenging the bill. Had the petitioner resorted to remedy provided under Section 126, he could have availed opportunity to challenge finalisation of the assessment before the appropriate appellate authority under Section 127. Having not chosen to avail any such remedies, challenge now raised by the petitioner disputing correctness of Ext.P2 bill, cannot be examined in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
3. However this Court takes note of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court in a recent decision in W.P.(C). No. 11906/2011 and connected cases (judgment dated W.P.(C) No.21285 /2014 3 07.07.2014) had quashed relevant notification issued by the Government appointing the Appellate Authorities under Section 127, holding that it is not in accordance with the provisions contained in the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004. By the said judgment, the Government was directed to make fresh appointment of the Appellate Authorities as contemplated under Section 127 in accordance with the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules 2004. Further the writ petitioners therein, who have not filed appeals against the orders of assessment issued under Section 126 of the Act were permitted to file appeals under Section 127, within one month of constitution of the Appellate Authorities, as directed by this Court.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the fact that the petitioner had already remitted 50% of the amount of penalty assessed and that he was not provided with any opportunity to dispute correctness of the penal assessment, a similar relief can be granted to him, permitting to avail remedy of appeal on the basis of the above cited judgment.
5. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file appeal under Section 127 to the Appellate W.P.(C) No.21285 /2014 4 Authority having jurisdiction, which will designated by the Government in view of the directions issued by this Court in the decision in W.P.(C) No. 11906/2011 and connected cases, within a period of one month from the date of such notification constituting the Appellate Authority. The appeal, if any filed by the petitioner as directed above within the time limit stipulated, shall be considered as an appeal filed within the statutory period of limitation and the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction shall deal with such appeal on merits and shall dispose of the same within a period of three months thereafter.
Since the petitioner had already remitted 50% of the amount assessed, realisation of the balance amount of penalty shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of such appeal, provided the petitioner files the appeal within the time stipulated as above.
sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM,
JV JUDGE