IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 7047 of 2001(L)
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.E.BOARD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
For Respondent :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :18/02/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
O.P.NO.7047 OF 2001
----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the Managing Director of a tea factory at
Mananthavady and is the consumer of electrical energy for the said
factory. On 16/9/2000 the Anti Power Theft Squad conducted a
site inspection and detected that the power meter is recording only
1/3rd of the actual power drawn from the mains due to wrong
electrical connection of CT meters resulted in reverse running in
one phase and the existence of unauthorised additional load of 44
KW over and above the authorised load of 130 KW. On the basis
of the inspection report, which is produced as Ext.P2, the consumer
was re-assessed with effect from 12/97 for partial recording and 3
times rate on fixed charge and proportionate current charge was
charged for unauthorised additional load (UAL). Ext.P3 is the bill
in which the grand total shows Rs.8,04,741/- out of that fixed
charge is Rs.27,720/-. Petitioner challenged Ext.P3 bill in an
-2-
O.P.No.7047/2001
appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate
Authority by proceedings dated 8/2/2001 dismissed the appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised all the
contentions placed before the Appellate Authority. According to
the learned counsel, Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of
Supply of Electrical Energy provides for re-assessment for six
months and there is no reason for adopting the period from 12/97,
a total period of 32 months. The learned counsel also brought to
this Court’s attention the decision of the Supreme Court in
Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board
(AIR 1997 SC 2793), the unreported decision of the learned
Single Judge of this Court dated 23/11/2005 in O.P.No.191/98
and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nirmala
Metal Industries v. K.S.E.B. (2006 (3) KLT 465). Learned
counsel submitted that re-assessment has to be done based on the
aforesaid decisions and it has to be limited to six months.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E. Board
contended that CT connection in Y phase was reversed and there
-3-
O.P.No.7047/2001
was unauthorised additional load of 44 KW during inspection.
The period of re-assessment is taken as 12/97, as there was
sudden drop in recorded consumption from the said date. The
recorded consumption for 10/97 was 21098 Kwh, 11/97 was
23020 KWh and 12/97 was 8782 KWh, which is approximately
1/3 of earlier consumption. It is also brought to this Court’s
attention the recorded consumption subsequent to the site
inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad. It shows
that the recorded consumption for the month of November, 2000
is 30,280 and for the month of December, 2000, is 36,962 kwh.
The Appellate Authority did not accept the contention of the
appellant that Section 26(6) is applicable and therefore the
maximum amount that can be realised is only for a period of six
months prior to the date of inspection. The Appellate Authority
held that Section 26(6) is applicable only in case of faulty meters
where the reassessment is done based on approximation or
overcharging. In such cases Section 26(6) will attract and the
period has to be limited to six months. According to the
-4-
O.P.No.7047/2001
Appellate Authority, in the instant case, it is entirely different and
that similar issue has been settled by the judgment of the Apex
Court and the High Court. In the judgment in O.P.No.191/98
referred to above, it was stated that on inspection, it was found
that there was some defect in the electric connections inside the
meter consequent to which the meter was recording only 1/3 of
the actual energy consumed. In that case a bill for short
assessment for consumption of electrical energy for the period
stated therein was issued demanding charges for the balance 2/3
energy as payable by the petitioner therein.
4. This Court relying on the decision reported in Belwal
Spinning Mills’s case (1997 SC 2793) discussed the issue and
observed that there is absolutely no allegation of fraud or mal-
practice on the part of the consumer, that the reduced recording
was caused due to the wrong connection inside the meter. The
meter recorded on l/3 of the actual consumption. The facts of the
said case and the facts of the present case are more or less
similar. In this case also the the consumer has not done any mal-
-5-
O.P.No.7047/2001
practice or fraud for the purpose of showing reduced
consumption of energy. Since the Y phase connection is
reversed, 1/3 of the actual consumption was recorded. In the
Supreme Court case also, there was a defective connection
whereby the original meter was registering only 76.6% less than
the actual use. The Court held that Section 26(6) of the Indian
Electricity Act is attracted and therefore, the right of the K.S.E.
Board to demand arrears is limited to a period of past six months.
In this case also applying Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity
Act, the matter has to be referred to the Chief Electrical
Inspector, as in the said case. It was held that the K.S.E. Board is
entitled to demand arrears only for a period of past six months for
the reason that the recorded consumption is 1/3 of the actual
consumption.
5. Ext.P3 bill was issued for realisation of the amount for
the loss caused to the Board for the reason that Y phase
connection is reversed and for unauthorised additional load to the
extent of 44 KWh under Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of
-6-
O.P.No.7047/2001
Supply of Electrical Energy. The petitioner is liable to pay the
amounts assessed by the Board for unauthorised additional load
of 44 Kwh in addition to the demand for payment of arrears for
the past six months from the date of detection. Respondents are
entitled to demand only the amount as stated above.
6. In the result, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. There will
be a direction to the respondents to re-work the arrears and issue
a fresh bill to the petitioner within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount
already deposited in compliance of the interim order passed by
this Court shall be adjusted.
Original Petition is disposed of as above.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.