MASCOM STEEL (INDIA) PVT. LTD, ERUMATHALA P.O., V-713, NEAR IDA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.GEORGE ANTONY, PIN – 683112

¶7

BY ADVS. N.JAMES KOSHY ALEX ABRAHAM

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., EDATHALA SECTION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683563

¶10

2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542

¶11

3 THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PLACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

¶12

4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PLACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695004

¶13

5 THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶14

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683562

¶17

SRI.B.PRAMOD(STANDING COUNSEL)FOR R1 TO R4 & R6 SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.29139 of 2023

¶24

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2024

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶27

The petitioner, a Private Limited Company

¶28

engaged in the manufacture of steel bars, is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P36 proceedings of the Assessing Officer under the Electrical Sub Division, Kizhakkambalam. By Ext.P36, a final assessment order was made against the petitioner for an amount of ₹4,17,41,199/-.

¶29

The petitioner was granted power connection of 1000 KVA HT up to the year 2017. In the year 2017, the petitioner noted that a minimum load of 2500 KVA was necessary for the working of the factory. The petitioner submitted a request dated 15.02.2017 to increase contract demand to 2500 KVA immediately. Thereupon, Ext.P3

¶30

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

feasibility report was drawn. The 2^nd respondent accorded administrative sanction to an estimate amount of ₹51,43,730/- for executing the work of enhancing the connected load. As demanded, the petitioner remitted ₹20,82,500/-. After necessary work, the 5^th respondent granted sanction for energisation for installation in the factory.

¶33

On 17.09.2018, the petitioner submitted a formal application for service connection with enhanced contract demand of 3120.5 HP. The service connection required NOC from the Panchayat. The Panchayat denied grant of NOC for enhancing the connected electricity load. The petitioner filed appeal No.553/2016 in the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Panchayat and directed the Secretary to reconsider application for NOC afresh.

¶34

On 15.01.2019, the Additional District Magistrate gave sanction to draw the line to enhance the power supply to the petitioner. The unit was thereafter energised with a

¶35

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

contract demand of 3120.5 HP.

¶38

To the surprise of the petitioner, they were served with Exts.P20 to P31 demand notices and collected energy charges from the petitioner one and a half time the demand charges. The amounts totalled to ₹77,51,250/-. Thereafter, a team of KSEB officers inspected the Company on 15.07.2023 and prepared Ext.P33 mahazar. In Ext.P33, it was alleged that the connected load in the unit is 3570200 Watts. On the basis of Ext.P33, Ext.P34 provisional bill for ₹4,18,21,242/- was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P35 objection to the provisional assessment. The 6^th respondent, however, passed Ext.P36 final order confirming the liability of ₹4,17,41,199/-. The petitioner was required to pay the amount within 30 days.

¶39

The petitioner states that Ext.P36 final order is arbitrary and illegal. Ext.P34 provisional bill was issued without stating any reason for the assessment. The petitioner had applied for enhancement of contract demand. No decision on the application for enhancement of loan was

¶40

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

given to the petitioner. As per Regulation 99(8), sanction should be deemed to have been granted with effect from 31^st day of the date of submission of application by consumer.

¶43

The petitioner urged that the respondents have not issued any notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Regulation 101 until Ext.P36 was passed. Ext.P36 violates the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014. The petitioner also pointed out various illegalities/irregularities in the matter of assessment and urged that Ext.P36 final order be quashed and respondents be directed to refund the excess amount collected from the petitioner.

¶44

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the agreed contract demand and connected load of the petitioner was 1000 KVA and 792.15 KW respectively. An inspection conducted revealed that the consumer is having a total connected load of 3570.200 KW. Sanction was given for constructing 2200 metres HP ABC from 110 KV Edathala SS to the petitioner's

¶45

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶46

: 7 :

¶47

premises for an extent of 1500 KVA in addition to existing 1000 KVA. The work was completed and energised on 09.04.2019.

¶48

The respondents submitted that the petitioner was issued notice dated 08.08.2009 for regularising the connected load. The petitioner failed to submit application for load regularisation. The petitioner was aware of the existence of unauthorised connected load. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, contented the respondents.

¶49

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4 and 6 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 5^th respondent.

¶50

It is an admitted position that the consumer has signed a High Tension agreement with the licensee on 02.12.2009 for the use of electricity under industrial tariff for a connected load of 792.15 KW and contract demand of 1000 KVA. The Anti Power Theft Squad conducted an inspection of the premises of the petitioner on 15.07.2023.

¶51

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶52

: 8 :

¶53

The inspection revealed unauthorised additional load of 2778 KW against the sanctioned load of 792 KW. The total load connected to the supply system at the time of inspection was 3570 KW. It was in the said circumstances that the provisional assessment order for ₹4,18,21,242/- was issued on 25.07.2023.

¶54

If the connected load / contract demand exceeds, the unauthorised connected load will attract Section 126(6) (b)(ii) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

¶55

The argument of the petitioner and objection raised by the petitioner in Ext.P35 is that the petitioner had submitted application for enhancement of connected load. If an application is submitted for service connection and orders are not passed within the specified time, the consumer is free to use the applied quantity of electricity on payment of electricity charges without penalty. Therefore, the penalty of 1.5 times is illegal as the petitioner has consumed less than the connected load applied for.

¶56

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶57

: 9 :

¶58

The respondents would urge that no evidence was submitted by the petitioner during the hearing held on 08.08.2023 for the remittance of the application fee for load regularisation in the industrial unit. The power allocation application was submitted only on 05.01.2018. The power allocation sanctioned was issued only on 12.04.2018.

¶59

The question therefore arises whether the petitioner-Company had submitted application for enhancement of contract demand. The issues therefore involve disputed questions of fact. The Electricity Act provides for appeal against assessment of penalty. The petitioner has alternate remedy to file appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶60

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be only appropriate that the petitioner files statutory appeal against the impugned orders. The statute prescribes a limitation of 30 days for entertaining an appeal. The statute also prescribes for pre-deposit. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been bona fide agitating his case

¶61

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶62

: 10 :

¶63

before this Court filing the writ petition and taking into account the stakes involved in the matter, I am of the view that if the petitioner prefers an appeal making the statutory pre-deposit, then the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits and pass orders.

¶64

The writ petition is therefore disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against Ext.P36 order making requisite pre-deposit, within a period of two weeks. If the petitioner files the appeal satisfying all other statutory requirements within a period of two weeks, then the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits and pass final orders within a further period of two months. If appeal is filed by the petitioner making deposit as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, proposed against the petitioner shall stand deferred till the appellate authority takes final decision.

¶65

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

aks/14.05.2024

¶68

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶69

: 11 :

¶70

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29139/2023

¶71

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶72

Exhibit-P1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
	NO.MISPL/MISC/0001 DATED 05.08.2015
	ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ENHANCING THE CONTRACT DEMAND
Exhibit-P3	TRUE COPY OF THE FEASIBILITY REPORT DATED 15.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER 66 KV SUB STATION, EDATHALA
Exhibit-P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ECP/T2/ HT/MASCOM STEEL/2018-19/90/12.4.18 DATED 07.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
	SANCTION ORDER NO.1/ECP/ 2018- 19/PBVR/T2/HT-MASCOM STEEL/88 DATED 12.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT WITH ESTIMATE OF THE WORK SANCTIONED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.476477
	DATED 13.04.2018 FOR REMITTING RS.20,82,500/- ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P8	TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REQUEST MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR APPROVAL TO ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, VYTTILA
Exhibit-P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER NO.B3- 20444/2017/CEI DATED 22.05.2018 ALONG WITH DETAILS OF THE CONNECTED LOAD
	SANCTIONED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶73

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶74

: 12 :

¶75

Exhibit-P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER LETTER NO.DB/EDATHALA/2018- 19/21 DATED 23.05.2018
Exhibit-P11	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SERVICE CONNECTION DATED 17.09.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P12	TRUE COPY OF THE SIGNED DEED OF AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P13	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.ECP/T2/GENERAL/2018-19/2315/ 8.11.18 DATED 01.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P14	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.553/2016 DATED 29.11.2018 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit-P15	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 162278 DATED 24.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE KSEB LTD. FOR REMITTANCE OF RS.1,78,800/-
Exhibit-P16	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.DB2/18- 19/EDLA/63 DATED 01.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EDATHALA POLICE STATION
Exhibit-P17	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
	NO.DB/10/KBLM/CASES/18-19/174 DATED
	07.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAKKANAD
Exhibit-P18	TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER
	NO.DCEKM-11391/2018/MS DATED 15.01.2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAKKANAD
Exhibit-P19	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 03.04.2019 BY REMITTING RS.1270/- OF THE KSEB ENERGISATION APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE SUB TREASURY, TRIPUNITHURA
Exhibit-P20	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR
	AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR
	JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 03.08.2022

¶76

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶77

: 13 :

¶78

Exhibit-P21	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 02.09.2022
Exhibit-P22	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 06.10.2022
Exhibit-P23	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 03.11.2022
Exhibit-P24	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 02.12.2022
Exhibit-P25	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 04.01.2023
Exhibit-P26	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 02.02.2023
Exhibit-P27	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 02.03.2023
Exhibit-P28	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 04.04.2023
Exhibit-P29	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 03.05.2023
Exhibit-P30	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 02.06.2023
Exhibit-P31	TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES FOR AUGUST, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 2022 AND FOR JANUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023 AS PER BILL DATED 06.07.2023

¶79

W.P.(C) No.29139/2023

¶80

: 14 :

¶81

Exhibit-P32	TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF	BILLS
	SHOWING THE PENALTY COLLECTED FR	OM THE
	PETITIONER WITHOUT ANY VALID	REASON
	AMOUNTING TO RS.77,51,250/-
Exhibit-P33	TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR	DATED
	15.07.2023 PREPARED BY A TEAM O OFFICERS OF THE PETITIONER'S COM	F KSEB PANY
Exhibit-P34	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL NO.DB/36/2023-24/KBLM/PROVISIONA BILL/ORDER DATED 25.07.2023 ISS THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITI	ORDER L UED BY ONER
Exhibit-P35	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION 08.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETI BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT	DATED TIONER
Exhibit-P36	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL	ORDER
	NO.DB/36/2023-24/KBLM/FINAL	BILL/
	ORDER NO.229 DATED 09.08.2023 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT	ISSUED
Exhibit-P37	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.ECP	/T4/CD
	EXCEEDING/2023-24/1304	DATED
	22.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE	2ND
	RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Mascom Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd, v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mascom Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd, v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nijo Varghese Vs the Transport Commissioner

Emily Chacko Vs Reserve Bank of India

Biju Chacko, Vs the Authorised Officer

Saleesh M K Vs the State Bank of India

Mariyamu, Vs Tirur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Francis Abraham Vs State Bank of India