Dismissed

V.C.Joy v. Kerala State Electricity Board Rep.by Its Secretary

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016WP(C)/3764/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging penalty imposed for unauthorized extension of electricity. The court held that the tribunal's decision based on Regulation 50(5) of KSEB Terms and Conditions and Section 126 of the Electricity Act was based on facts and law, warranting neither interference nor reassessment by the court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for limiting the penalty imposition to a maximum of one month was dismissed. The respondent Board is directed to collect the balance amount after adjusting payments.

V.C.Joy Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Rep.by Its… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3764 of 2013 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

V.C.JOY,

¶8

S/O. CHACKO, VELLIYAMKUZHY HOUSE, KADAMATTOM, KADAMATTOM.P.O.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SRI.PAUL K.PETER SMT.LAKSHMI V.PARAMESWARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶12

2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POWER HOUSE ROAD, COCHIN-682 018.

¶13

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOLENCHERRY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM DIVISION-682 311.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB, S.C

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 3764 of 2013 (U)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZER PREPARED ON 04-04-2012 BY THE SUB ENGINEER OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD SRI. BIJU.A.T. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-04-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL BILL DATED 11-04-2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14-05-2012. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16-10-2012. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-12-2012. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 28-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT ELECTRICAL SECTION KOLENCHERRY. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE SUB ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOLENCHERRY.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

============= W.P. (C) No. 3764 of 2013

¶28

===================

¶29

Dated this, the 9^th day of June, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P2, P3, P4, P6, P7 and P8 and for a direction to limit the imposition of penalty only upto a maximum period of one month.

¶32

The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would show that the petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'KSEB') having consumer No.12559. An inspection was conducted on 4/4/2012 pursuant to which an order was passed on 11/4/2012 alleging unauthorised use of electric supply to a nearby premises. Demand was made for an amount of 2,55,500/- as per provisional bill dated 11/4/2012. Petitioner submitted his objections. A personal hearing was given and the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent passed a final order on 14/5/2012 reducing the amount to 1,26,000/-. An appeal was preferred to the 2^nd respondent which was disposed of on 17/12/2012, produced as Ext.P6, by which it was observed that the assessment for unauthorised extension has to be done on

¶33

W.P(C) No.3764/13

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

“ per day basis and the period shall be restricted to one year preceding the date of inspection ”. The assessment was therefore confirmed and the petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P7 bill was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay `63,000/- after adjusting the payment already made.

¶36

Petitioner contended that the connection was taken only for doing the flooring work of a new building and therefore it was illegal on the part of the respondents to have imposed such a huge penalty on the petitioner. It is argued that penalty cannot be imposed based on connected load on daily basis in the absence of any such provision in the statute. Reference is also made to a judgment of this Court in J.D.T.Islam Orphanage Committee v. Assistant Engineer, KSEB (2007 (3) KLT 388).

¶37

On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board supported the stand taken by them. It is stated that all the factual and legal aspects of the matter had been considered while imposing the penalty. It is submitted that this is a case in which there was unauthorised extension of electricity to the nearby premises. In the normal circumstances, under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the

¶38

W.P(C) No.3764/13

¶39

-:3:-

¶40

assessment has to be made to the best of the judgment. Initially, the charges were levied for 365 days which was reduced to half of the amount. While considering the appeal, the appellate authority observed that the connection was given to the consumer under LT Ia tariff. It was noticed that total connected load of 7 KW was extended unauthorisedly. It was observed that the tariff assigned to such unauthorized constructions is LT VIII, which is calculated on per day basis on fixed charges for `50/KW or part thereof. The period of assessment for such violation has been furnished in Regulation 50(5) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. The said regulation reads as under;

¶41

“If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, and if however the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding date of inspection. The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable.”

¶42

When the appellate authority had taken a decision

¶43

based on the factual and legal aspects involved in the matter, I do

¶44

W.P(C) No.3764/13

¶45

-:4:-

¶46

not think that this Court should interfere in the decision making process in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶47

In J.D.T.Islam Orphanage Committee (supra), the Court proceeded on the basis that there is no provision under the Terms and Conditions of Supply or the tariff notification that the unauthorized extension shall be treated as temporary extension for the purpose of tariff. In fact, the Regulation quoted above, which applies to the fact situation, was not considered in the said judgment. Under such circumstances, I do not think that the aforesaid judgment can be relied upon by the petitioner.

¶48

I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It shall be open for the respondent Board to collect the balance amount from the petitioner after adjusting all payments made.

¶49

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶50

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

P.S to Judge

V.C.Joy v. Kerala State Electricity Board Rep.by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.C.Joy v. Kerala State Electricity Board Rep.by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomsons Specialty Packagings and Exports (India) Ltd. Vs State Bank of Travancore

Jagadeesh.P.K. Vs the Addl.District Magistrate

Ewv.Sr.Molly Augustine Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Psn Educational and Charitable Trust Vs the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Faizal K M Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

M/S. Mez Projects and Ventures Vs Kerala State Electricity Board