SONIA EXPORTS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner is before this Court challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant the benefit as available in [Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others, (2017) 2 ILR(Ker) 609]. The appellant, who is engaged in the business of processing marine products, was a consumer of the Kerala State Electricity Board under the High Tension (HT) category with a sanctioned load of 232.113 KW. On an inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board on 18.6.2013, unauthorised additional load (UAL for short) of 170.587 KW was detected. A provisional assessment was made in the year 2013 itself and after calling for objections, the same was made absolute.

(2.) The final assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not challenged in appeal for reason projected of the appellate authority constituted having been dissolved. The petitioner filed a writ petition as W.P.(c) 27564 of 2014 which was disposed of by Ext.R3(a) judgment dated 23.10.2014. On the submission of the State that an appellate authority will be constituted immediately, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal within one month and on satisfaction of 50% of the demand the recovery was directed to be kept in abeyance. There was also a statutory stipulation of pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal, which was the reason for the order keeping the recovery in abeyance. The petitioner did not comply with the same and again approached this Court with an I.A in the disposed of matter seeking enlargement of time which was granted as per Ext.R3(b) order dated 26.11.2014. This order was also not complied with.

(3.) After three years, yet another Writ Petition was filed admitting the liability and seeking installments which was allowed by Ext.R3(c) judgment dated 07.04.2017. The petitioner undertook to pay the entire amounts, and in that circumstances, an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was directed to be paid within a week, as undertaken and the balance in six equal monthly installments. Twice extension was sought which orders were also not complied with. The petitioner then, belatedly remitted 50% of the total demand, and filed an appeal, with gross delay, in the year 2017. The same was considered and Ext.P1 order was passed, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge.