(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the demand made by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter called the 'Board', for payment of additional security deposit as per Regulation 14(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.
(2.) Petitioners include LT commercial consumers and domestic consumers. Board has demanded security deposit equal to three months' probable current charge of the consumer, computed by the Assistant Engineer or Assistant Executive Engineer. In the case of EHT and HT consumers, the amount of security deposit demanded by the Board is equal to the months' probable current charge of the consumer, as decided by the Chief Engineer and Deputy Chief Engineer. In the case of EHT consumers the security deposit shall be either by cash, D.D. or bank guarantee. Security deposit in respect of other categories of consumers is either by cash or demand draft.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners contended that the classification made between LT consumers on the one hand, and EHT and HT consumers on the other hand is unreasonable and arbitrary. Counsel further contended that there is no necessity for demanding security deposit, since the Board has got ample power under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Regulation 32 of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy to disconnect electricity supply for non-payment of dues. According to counsel, in any view of the matter, the Board could demand security deposit only based on connected load. Relying on Regulation 14(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, counsel contended that provision itself shows the basis, and there is no justification in demanding security deposit on the basis of average consumption. Counsel for some of the petitioners contended that even the Board has committed an error in fixing the average. Counsel submitted Board ought to have taken into account electricity charges for one year, starting from January to December, and fixed the average accordingly.