GOPI CHAKUNNATH Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the registered consumer of electric connection with Con. No.271 provided under the 3rd respondent. The electric connection was provided to a residential house under the domestic tariff. Pursuant to an inspection conducted on 06-11-2012 by the Anti-Power Theft Squad, supply was disconnected alleging misuse of energy for commercial purpose, for running an office within the premises. A provisional bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued, as evidenced from Ext.P6. According to the petitioner he had submitted objections to Ext.P6 bill, which was refused acceptance by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the objections was sent by registered post to the 3rd respondent on 05-11-2012. However, the petitioner had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum as per Ex.P7. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P6. Inter alia he is seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7.

(2.) HEARD ; standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3. It is evident that Ext.P6 is a provisional assessment of penalty under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 126 provide a comprehensive procedure for imposing penalty in case of detection of unauthorised use of electricity. It provides issuance of a provisional assessment and finalisation of the same after affording opportunity to file objections and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Further, Section 127 provides remedy of statutory appeal against the final assessment. Since Sections 126 and 127 by itself is a comprehensive Code, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot approach the 2nd respondent challenging a penal assessment issued under Section 126, bye-passing the procedure and remedies provided under those Sections. Therefore I am of the view that Ext.P7 complaint is not sustainable and no direction can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7.

(3.) IT is stated that electric supply to the consumer has been disconnected invoking Section 135 (1A) of Electricity Act, 2003. But the last proviso to Section 135 (1A) enables the consumer to get the supply restored on deposit of the amount assessed. But in the case at hand the provisional assessment has not been finalised after considering the objections. Therefore I am of the view that continuance of disconnection will cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to restore the electric connection, forthwith on receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, this will not prevent the authorities from taking appropriate coercive steps in case default is committed with respect to payment of any amount of penalty ultimately found liable.