WILSON Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is against revenue recovery steps initiated by virtue of Exts. P4 and P5 notices issued against the petitioner. The amount sought to be recovered is the penalty imposed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner was the registered consumer with respect to electric connection, bearing Consumer No. 4925, which now stands disconnected and dismantled. There was an inspection conducted at the premises by the Anti-Power Theft Squad (APTS) on 23/08/2007. Alleging detection of theft of electricity by way of tampering of the Electric Meter, a criminal case was instituted against the 4th respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, as Crime No. 278/2007 of Puthukad Police Station. It is evident that, based on the inspection, penalty was imposed invoking Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The provisional order of penalty was subjected to challenge before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 28086/2007 by the 4th respondent. Address of the petitioner in that case is shown as, "A.R. Anto, S/o. Rappai, C/o. A.R. Wilson, Alukkal House, Thalore, Thrissur District". A.R. Wilson is the petitioner herein. This Court in Ext. P2 judgment directed the Assessing Officer to finalise the penal bill after hearing the objections. As an interim measure, the electric connection was directed to be restored on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. Pursuant to Ext. P2 judgment, the assessment was finalised on the basis of the objections submitted by the 4th respondent, as per Ext. R2(g) proceedings. From Ext. R2(g) it is evident that the appeal (objection) was filed with the address as, "Sri. A.R. Anto, S/o. Rappai, C/o. A.R. Wilson, Alukka House, Thalore, Consumer No. 4925". Ext. R2(h) is the consequential demand issued on finalisation of the assessment. It is pertinent to note that Ext. R2(h) is seen issued in the name of "CON No. 4925/VIIA/ollur".

(2.) Contention of the petitioner is that the Hotel in question where the electricity connection was provided, was assigned in the family partition in favour of the 4th respondent in the year 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that on the date of the detection of the theft, the 4th respondent was occupying the premises and he was conducting the Hotel business. The criminal case was registered only against the 4th respondent will indicate the fact that he was only in occupation of the premises, is the contention. In order to fortify the contention, the petitioner places reliance on Ext. R2(b) Mahazar which contains a statement to the effect that the inspection was conducted at the premises of the hotel which was run by the 4th respondent. It is contended by the petitioner that the challenge against imposition of penalty was pursued only by the 4th respondent using the 'care of address' of the petitioner. None of the proceedings or demand notices were served directly to the petitioner. But they were served only at the premise which was in occupation of the 4th respondent, is the contention.

(3.) Learned counsel of the petitioner had drawn my attention to the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 126 contemplates assessment of penalty on the person, who was found to be indulging in unauthorised use of electricity. The procedure contemplated is by serving a provisional assessment upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises. Finalisation is contemplated on the basis of objection if any filed by any person upon whom the provisional assessment is issued. He had also drawn my attention to Regulation 50 of the 'KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005', which is in pari materia with Section 126. Contention is that the revenue recovery steps initiated to realise the amount of penalty from the petitioner is unsustainable. In support of the said contention it is also pointed out that, at the time of dismantling of the connection the Hotel was situated in a property upon which the 4th respondent holds title and ownership. According to the 4th respondent the property was assigned in his name by virtue of Ext. R4(a) document on 04/11/2008.