PAREETH Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue that is raised for consideration is the correctness of a proceeding initiated against the appellant under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge. Bereft of the details which are irrelevant, facts of the case are that the appellant, who has established an industrial unit manufacturing plastic products, is an LT IV consumer of electricity supplied by the respondents. His premises were inspected by the A.P.T.S. of the Board on 14.3.2003 and was issued Ext. P3 bill Ext. P5 appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of by Ext. P6 order directing revision of the bill and accordingly, Exts. P7 to P9 were issued. It was in these circumstances the Writ Petition was filed challenging the aforesaid proceedings. The Writ Petition was dismissed and hence the appeal.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents and have considered the submissions made by both sides.

(3.) The contention urged by the counsel for the appellant was that the appellate authority erred in not disposing of the appeal, in the light of the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003, (hereinafter referred to as the '2003 Act', for short) which was brought into force with effect from 10.6.2003 and not the Electricity Act, 1910, which has been repealed. According to him, penalty was imposed invoking Clause 43 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy framed under S. 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and that the levy could, at best, have been possible under S. 126 of the 2003 Act. To buttress his argument, counsel placed reliance on the Apex Court judgments in Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 2 SCC 557), Gajrag Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1997 1 SCC 650, Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, 2000 2 SCC 536 and Gammon India Ltd. v. Special Chief Secretary, 2006 3 SCC 354 and the judgment of this Court in K.S.E.B. v. Najeeb, 2005 1 KerLT 406.