ASSISTANT ENGINEER Vs. SURESHKUMAR K.S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) challenges Exhibit P3 order of the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority ('the Appellate Authority' for brevity) on the ground that its findings regarding non-requirement of upgradation of the distribution system or enhancement of voltage level, in spite of more than seven thousand watts being noticed as the unauthorised load, is incorrect; and that the order to the extent to which it confines the revision of assessment at only twice the fixed charges, is contrary to Section 45(3) of the Electricity Act ('the Act' for brevity).

(2.) I have examined the order impugned in this writ petition namely Exhibit P3 and I am of the view that the issue relating to the charging of tariff in the case of unauthorized loads, not obtained by artificial means or in violation of the purpose for which it has been granted, is covered by a bench judgment of this Court in Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd v. Kerala State Electricity Board ((2017) 4 KHC 563). The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB, Sri.K.Janardhana Shenoy, of course, says that this judgment is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition and therefore, that this Court may await the orders of the Hon'ble Court. As regards the factual finding in Exhibit P3 that no upgradation of the distribution system or enhancement of voltage level necessarily is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel says that this was not properly considered by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) When I go through the impugned order, as also the pleadings on record, I am afraid that I cannot find any specific contention or challenge raised by the KSEB quad hoc the factual situation as to whether the detected unauthorized load of 1000 Watts requires upgradation of the existing distribution system or enhancement of the voltage level. The only contention urged in this writ petition is that this additional load will 'over burden the transformer and thus the distribution system' ( sic). In the absence of any such specific contention, I fail to understand how the KSEB can assert that Exhibit P3 order is bad on that count, particularly since this Court has already, in Sulabha Marketing (supra), answered these issues against the petitioner.