Allowed

The Assistant Engineer v. the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority

Kerala HC15 Jul 2024WP(C)/34059/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to restrict the assessment period for unauthorized electricity usage to a specific duration, violating Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which mandates a twelve-month period when the duration is ascertainable.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order set aside; Ext.P2 demand restored; Writ petition allowed.

The Assistant Engineer Vs the Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 34059 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
AGED 42 YEARS,
ELECTRICAL SECTION,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)
SRI.K.T.PAULOSE, SC, KSEB

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUILDING NO.CC 51/52, NEAR 110 KV SUB STATION, VYTILA, COCHIN-682019.

¶11

2SHRI. T.R.SEDHUNATH
SECRETARY, THRISSUR TENNIS TRUST,
PUZHAKKAL P.O., THRISSUR-680 002.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 34059 OF 2015 -2-

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board has come up in the present writ petition impugning Ext.P4 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority.

¶16

The facts in brief are that the second respondent – M/s.Thrissur Tennis Trust is a consumer of the Kerala State Electricity Board with Consumer No.14438 under the jurisdiction of the petitioner. On 16.06.2014, an application for power feasibility was submitted by the club for enhancing their connected load from 75 KW to 125 KW. While so, on the basis of the complaint, a surprising inspection was carried on 09.10.2014 by Anti-Power Theft Squad and found that there was unauthorized consumption of the electrical energy. On the basis of Ext.P1 Mahazar, a demand was raised for Rs.13,49,366/- (Rupees Thirteen lakh forty nine thousand three hundred and sixty six only). The

¶17

WP(C) NO. 34059 OF 2015 -3-

¶18

said demand was challenged before the appellate authority by the second respondent which resulted in Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4 order, the appellate authority though had found that there is in fact unauthorized use of electrical energy, had however without any reason, restricted the assessment from 16.06.2014 to 09.10.2014. The said findings are impugned in this present writ petition.

¶19

I have heard Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel assisted by K.T.Poulose appearing for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the second respondent, there is no appearance for the second respondent.

¶20

The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in terms of provisions under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the assessment made by the petitioner was perfectly justified. Despite findings that there is unauthorized use of electrical energy the

¶21

WP(C) NO. 34059 OF 2015 -4-

¶22

appellate authority was not justified in restricting the assessment for a particular period that would without assigning any reasons.

¶23

I have considered the submissions raised

¶24

across the Bar. Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act reads as under:

¶25

“(5)If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5).

¶26

Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,– (a) “assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by

¶27

WP(C) NO. 34059 OF 2015 -5-

¶28

the State Government;

¶29

(b) “unauthorised use of electricity” means the usage of electricity–

¶30

(i) by any artificial means; or

¶31

(ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or

¶32

(iii) through a tampered meter; or

¶33

(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or

¶34

(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised.”

¶35

6. When Ext.P1 Mahazar is closely scrutinized, it

¶36

evidences an unauthorized consumption of electrical energy. In the basis of Ext.P2 demand is the said inspection. With the findings in the Mahazar as well as the demand, and the findings rendered in Ext.P4, it becomes explicitly clear that the appellate authority has

¶37

WP(C) NO. 34059 OF 2015 -6-

¶38

concluded that the appellant before it/second respondent herein has used an aggregate additional load of 50KW over and above the sanctioned load of 75KW and also started Bar and restaurant in the same premises without the permission of the KSEB.

¶39

In view of the matter, this Court is definitely in its view that the appellate authority could not have restricted the right of the Board to assess the second respondent for a period of twelve(12) months as per the mandate contained under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The statutory authority like the first respondent is not expected to travel beyond the statute. In fact it is pertinent to note that the appellate authority is a creation of statute and Section 127 is the provision by which the appellate authority has get the power to entertain the appeal. It is now settled law that the statutory tribunals, have to function within the frameworks of the statute. Applying these principles to

¶40

WP(C) NO. 34059 OF 2015 -7-

¶41

the facts of the case, there cannot be any doubt in the minds of this Court that the order impugned in the writ petition is per se without any jurisdiction. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is set aside. Ext.P2 demand is restored. Writ petition is allowed as above.

¶42

 Sd/-
 EASWARAN S.
JUDGE

¶43

vv

¶44

WP(C) NO. 34059 OF 2015 -8-

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34059/2015

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR

¶48

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER.

¶49

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 19-
1-2015.

¶50

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.82 OF 2014
DT 30-6-2015.

The Assistant Engineer v. the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Engineer v. the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.K.Assainar Vs Director of Local Fund Audit Department

K. Sivadasa Warrier Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

A.P. Beenamma Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Employee Pension Board

T.P. Vinayan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

G. Biju Vs State of Kerala

Renuka Madhu Vs State of Kerala