NABEESATH BEEVI Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISPUTE pertains to finalisation of penal assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and disconnection of supply effected alleging default in payment of the amount of penalty assessed. The 3rd respondent conducted an inspection at the premises where electric connection is provided under Consumer No.529. Exhibit P6 is the Site Mahazer prepared at the time of inspection. On the basis that unauthorised extension to another building was detected, a provisional assessment was issued on 26 -08 -2013, for an amount of Rs.23,400/ -. Since no objection was filed to the provisional assessment, the same was finalised on 04 -09 -2013. Exhibit P7 notice indicates that, one Sri. Nizamudheen was served with notices intimating finalisation of the assessment and requesting to make payment on or before 04 -10 -2013. He was also intimated about the right to file appeal against the final assessment, before the 2nd respondent. Despite the notices served on the above said person, the amounts were not remitted nor any appeal was filed. Hence the electric supply was disconnected on 05 -10 -2013.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that she is the occupant of the premises where the electric connection in question is provided. According to her no order of provisional assessment or final assessment was served on her. It is contended that the disconnection was effected without notice to her and hence the same cannot be sustained.

(3.) SECTION 126 provides that, on the Assessing Officer arriving at conclusion regarding any person indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, a provisional assessment should be made to the best of his judgment. Sub section (2) provides that such provisional assessment should be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in -charge of the place or premises in the manner prescribed. Sub section (3) provides that, the person upon whom the provisional order is served is entitled to file objection. In the case at hand the contention is that, the premises where the connection is provided is in occupation of the petitioner and the premises to which the alleged unauthorised extension is taken is in occupation of Sri. Nizamudheen, the petitioner's son. However, it is evident that the petitioner was having knowledge about the assessment. This is because of the fact that all the notices issued to Sri. Nizamudheen is produced as exhibits in this writ petition. The petitioner ought to have raised objection against the provisional assessment or she could have filed appeal against the final assessment before the 2nd respondent. The disconnection cannot be challenged on the basis that the assessment is not personally served on the petitioner. This is especially because of the fact that the petitioner is not the registered consumer.