RADHAKRISHNAN V M Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal issues impelled in this writ petition have already been decided by this Court in Mahaboob v. K.S.E.B Limited [2019 (1) KLT SN 13 (C.No.20)]. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K. Anand, also affirms this and says that even though this Court has found in Mahaboob (Supra), that the Appellate Authority is entitled to amerce the liability of the petitioner even without an appeal being filed by the K.S.E.B, Ext.P5 order, which is impugned herein, is untenable from the stand point of the factual circumstances also. He submits that the electrical equipment detected by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the K.S.E.B in the petitioner's premises were not connected to the consumer number in question and that they were being operated with solar energy, connected to a generator, in the said premises.

(2.) Even when I hear Sri. K. Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the afore lines, the undisputed fact is that the Operations Manager of the petitioner's establishment had concededly been present when the inspection was conducted by the APTS and had signed the mahazar, admitting the findings recorded in it. Therefore, it is not enough for the petitioner to merely assert as afore, but he ought to have presented compelling evidence in support of his contention and to prove his case with such evidence in substantiation. As is evident from Ext.P5, the Appellate Authority has considered these issues in great detail and has found that the petitioner had no case whatsoever that the mahazar is not in a proper form or that it is vitiated for any circumstances that can be found to be illegal; and therefore, that the petitioner, whose Operations Manager had been present when the inspection was conducted by the APTS, cannot now turn around and make a bald allegation that the mahazar does not reflect the truth. This is more so because there is no challenge to the mahazar in this writ petition and consequently all contentions in challenge of the same cannot find favour of this Court.

(3.) I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner's challenge Ext.P5 order, on the grounds raised in this writ petition, must fail and I am resultantly of the firm opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed, however, without costs.