The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by KSEB challenging an order of the Appellate Authority that set aside a final electricity assessment. The court held it was bound by its own Division Bench judgment in Sulabha Marketing regarding assessment limits for unauthorised overdrawal. The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 14TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.2745 OF 2020(P)
PETITIONER:
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB LTD., SULTANPET, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY
RESPONDENTS:
2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CC 51/52,NEAR 110 KV SUB STATION, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682 019.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.2745 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in this Writ Petition filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., (KSEBL) is Ext.P3 order of the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority, the 2nd respondent herein.
Electricity Act, 2003 as amended. Later, the 1st respondent was heard and a final assessment order was passed.
by the 1st respondent herein.
the Apex Court in Executive Engineer and Anr. v. M/S. Seetaram Rice Mill1 and that of a Division Bench of this Court in Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram and
1 [ 2012 (2) SCC 108]
WP(C).No.2745 OF 2020
3
others2 allowed the appeal and set aside the final assessment order. It was further ordered to revise the assessment order in the light of the dictum of this Court in Sulabha (supra). The KSEB was ordered to refund the excess amount with interest without levying any surcharge for the appeal period.
2 [2017 (3) KHC 563]
WP(C).No.2745 OF 2020
4
that in the case of a consumer, who is blamed for overdrawing electricity in excess of sanctioned/connected load in the very same premises and for the very same purpose and which do not involve any change in tariff applicable for the relevant category of services for which consumption has already been metered and paid by the consumer, assessment under Section 126 (6) of the Act can only be equal to twice the fixed charges payable and such consumer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay twice the energy charges applicable for the relevant category of services, unless regularisation of such additional connected load or enhancement of contract demand necessitates upgradation of the existing distribution system or enhancement of voltage level of supply. The only pre-condition is that such usage shall not be by any artificial means or through a tampered meter. There is no case for the petitioner that regularization of such additional connected load or enhancement of contract demand necessitates upgradation of the existing distribution system or enhancement of voltage level of supply. The overdrawal of electricity in excess of the sanctioned load was in the very same premises and for the very same purpose and did not involve any change in tariff applicable for the relevant category of service. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner squarely falls within the teeth of the judgment of their Lordships of the Division Bench. This Court is clearly bound by the judgment of their
WP(C).No.2745 OF 2020
5
Lordships and the mere fact that the judgment has been challenged before the Supreme Court is of no consequence. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Before parting, it is made clear that if the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides the issue in favour of the petitioner after overturning Sulabha (supra), the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate appropriate steps to realize the amount in accordance with law unless there is any other interdiction.
Reserving such right, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps
WP(C).No.2745 OF 2020
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT DATED 20/01/2017 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 08/02/2017. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/05/2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.46/2017 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate order setting aside the electricity assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
Whether the contend order is bad in law in light of the judgment of the Division Bench in Sulabha.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Executive Engineer and Anr. v. M/S. Seetaram Rice MillReferred¶21
Executive Engineer and Anr. v. M/S. Seetaram Rice Mill, [2012 (2) SCC 108] · Who else cites this
Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity BoardRelied on¶33
Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram, [2017 (3) KHC 563]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB Ltd., Sultanpet, Palakkad District.
Joby V.Chungath, Electronics Home Appliances, 2nd Floor, Jobys Mall, Palakkad - 678 014.
Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority, CC 51/52, Near 110 KV Sub Station, Vyttila, Kochi - 682 019.
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
