V.M.GEORGE Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner on 19-09-2012 and 22-09-2012, a back assessment bill was issued on the allegation that the Energy Meter installed at the premises was not recording consumption in one of its phases. Exhibit P2 is a provisional demand issued in this regard, which was objected by the petitioner through Ext.P3 explanation. But the 4th respondent had finalised the bill through Ext.P4 proceedings, confirming the demand.

(2.) MAIN contention raised by the petitioner is that there was an inspection conducted at the same premises exactly about one year back. Penalty was imposed at that time, under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, alleging detection of unauthorised additional connected load. Imposition of penalty on that count was challenged before the appellate authority, which was decided on giving considerable reductions. It is contended that, reasoning for imposition of back assessment for a period of one year in the impugned order based on a presumption that the fault might have coincided with the unauthorised additional load even at the time of earlier inspection, is totally baseless. Therefore it is contended that imposition of back assessment for a period of one year is totally unsustainable.

(3.) UNDER the above mentioned circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner can ne relegated to approach the CGRF against Ext.P4. If the petitioner submits any complaint before the CGRF within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said authority shall entertain such complaint and dispose of the same on merits.