SYRIACH KURIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P8 proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in exercise of power vested under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The impugned order is challenged without resorting to statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 127 of the Act, on the premise that the petitioner is challenging validity of Section 127(2) of the Act to the extent it imposes a pre-condition for deposit of 50% of the amount of penalty assessed. Penalty was imposed against the petitioner based on an inspection conducted at the premises by the Anti-Power Theft Squad (APTS), Vazhathoppu unit, on 30/10/2013. Ext. P6 is the 'Mahazer' prepared at the time of inspection. The penalty was imposed on the premise that, during inspection it was detected that the petitioner was using unauthorised additional load to the extent of 52 KW. When a provisional order of assessment was served, the petitioner submitted detailed objections. After affording opportunity of personal hearing, the 3rd respondent had finalised the assessment through Ext. P8. On the factual aspects the petitioner had disputed the alleged unauthorised extension. It was also contended that the additional connected load was functioning only through a 35 KVA Generator installed. It was further contended that the A/C and other equipments were fitted only recently. Discarding all such contentions the assessment was finalised through the impugned proceedings.

(2.) Section 127(2) is challenged as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that, the provision insisting pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty will deprive remedy of appeal against an order of assessment made illegally, which is totally unsustainable. Further it will deprive remedy to persons who have no means to pay the assessed amount. The condition works out onerous and oppressive and is challenged unreasonable and arbitrary.

(3.) Statutory prescription of pre-deposit for filing of appeals under various fiscal Statutes were held as valid through different legal precedents rendered by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. Merely because a precondition for deposit of part of the assessed amount is prescribed for maintaining an appeal, it will not become arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court cannot struck down validity of such provision merely because it will become onerous. There is no ground to declare that, insistence of any such conditions will violates rights protected under Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution. There is no valid or sustainable grounds made out warranting interference of this Court to struck down the provisions contained in Section 127(2) of the Statute. Hence the challenge in this regard fails.