T.R. INDIRA Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in both these cases, filed by a common petitioner, is against validity of Reg. 14(4) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Terms and Conditions'). Inter alia the petitioner is challenging demands issued for payment of special security deposit based on an order passed by the 1st respondent Board on 2.9.2008 (Ext. P4 in W.P. (C) No. 4075/2012). Regulation 14(4) of the Terms and Conditions provides that, if an intending consumer is not the owner of the premises to be electrified, he shall furnish a consent agreement in Form No. 4 obtained from the owner of the premises. If he is unable to produce such consent, service connection can be effected on the applicant executing an Indemnity Bond in Form No. 5. It further provides that a special deposit equal to an amount of security deposit is also payable whenever such connection is effected to the occupier/tenant and not to the owner. The petitioner is challenging Reg. 14(4) to the extent it insists upon for payment of special deposit equal to the amount of security deposit for getting connection by the occupier/tenant.

(2.) Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the 'Act' for short) empowers the distribution licencee to require deposit of reasonable security for the supply of electricity. It provides that the quantum of security should be as determined through Regulations, and the security is intended for payment of all monies which may become due to the licencee in respect of electricity supplied to the consumer or in respect of the cost of electric line, electrical plant, meter etc., provided for supplying electricity. Sub-section (1) of S. 47 provides that, if a person fails to give such security, the distribution licencee can refuse to give supply of electricity. Sub-section (2) enables the distribution licencee to require any person to give reasonable security when the security given by him has become invalid or insufficient. Sub-section (3) provides that if any person fails to give the security as contemplated under sub-section (2), the distribution licencee can discontinue supply for the period during which the failure continues.

(3.) From the provisions enumerated, it is clear that the 1st respondent Board being a distribution licencee is entitled to demand security deposit for providing connection and is also entitled to demand additional security if it is found that the security deposit already furnished is not sufficient. However, the quantum of security deposit which can be insisted upon should be as determined through Regulation.