ROYAL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION TRUST Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a society conducting a self financing institution by name Royal Dental College. The petitioner is functioning in its own premises at the address shown in the writ petition. The petitioner has an electric connection with consumer No:12788. The electric connection was provided in the year 2003 after completing the construction of the different buildings that are located within the same campus. The petitioner is being billed in accordance with the LTVIB tariff. The buildings include an administrative block, separate hostels for ladies and gents, clinical building and staff quarters. The petitioner has been paying the charges in respect of the electricity consumed, regularly and without any delay or default.

(2.) WHILE so, an inspection of the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 14.10.2008 by the Assistant Engineer of the Anti Power Theft Squad ('APTS' for short) along with the Sub Engineer of the concerned section. Ext.P3 is the mahazar prepared at the time of inspection. It was found on inspection that, the petitioner had connected load in excess of what was sanctioned to him. It was also found that, the petitioner had provided connections to the other buildings within the campus, from the electric connection that was initially provided to him. Alleging that, the petitioner had taken unauthorised extension to the different buildings in the premises and also alleging that there was unauthorised connected load, action was initiated against him under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the 'Act' for short).

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , Ext.P4 provisional assessment order dated 22.10.2008 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner immediately preferred Exts.P5 and P5(a) objections to the provisional assessment. It was pointed out that, the establishment had been provided with only one electric connection. The said connection was not meant for any particular building. It was meant for providing electric connection to all the buildings that are located within the same premises. For the said reason, the electricity meter was not installed in any particular building but, near the transformer, within the premises but, outside the buildings. If the connection had been provided to any particular building, it is contended that the electricity meter would have been located inside such building. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he has installed a generator having a capacity of 82.5KVA. The additional load that was detected was connected only to the generator and therefore, the additional appliances were being worked with the power from the generator, according to the petitioner. Errors in the calculation of the alleged unauthorised connected load were also pointed out in the objections.