JOMY THOMAS MANJOORAN Vs. K.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Exhibit P11 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, through which an assessment finalised under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act for short) is re-opened and a reassessment is made enhancing the quantum of penalty.

(2.) FACTS revealed in brief is that, pursuant to an inspection conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 12.08.2011, penalty under Section 126 was imposed alleging unauthorised use of electricity on the basis of detection of unauthorised connected load. The amount of penalty imposed through Exhibit P3 was remitted by the petitioner, on 25.08.2011, as evident from Exhibit P5 receipt. Subsequently Exhibit P7 notice was issued intimating that the penalty was re-assessed and the petitioner was requested to remit the balance amount. Allegation in Exhibit P7 is that the Senior Audit Officer had pointed out that the penalty charged was not in accordance with the Board's directions, because the penalisation for unauthorised extension was not charged. Allegation was raised to the effect that, on inspection conducted on 12.08.2011 unauthorised extension of temporary connection to newly constructed building, which had not received energisation approval, was detected. By Exhibit P7 the original penalty of Rs.2,45,970/- imposed was revised to Rs.14,76,000/- and the petitioner was requested to remit the balance of Rs.12,30,030/-.

(3.) THE petitioner inter alia contended that the inspection was not conducted by the duly authorised officer. He also contended that, penalisation made under LT VIII Tariff treating the unauthorised additional connected load as unauthorised temporary extension, is not sustainable. But sheet-Anchor of the contentions is regarding lack of jurisdiction vested on the 2nd respondent to re-open, revise or re-assess the penalty once finalised. Therefore, the question posed on the aspect of lack of jurisdiction is examined in detail.