High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-06-06Petitions allowed in part; impugned demand for ...

KOCHIN AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD. v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 33776/2008 (U) & WP(C).No. 1092/2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Judgment Date: 2014-06-06
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned demand for Additional Security Deposit under Regulation 14(4) is quashed. Indira v. Kerala State Electricity Board is relied upon to hold that Special Deposit cannot be demanded from existing consumers and is confined to tenancy-related pre-conditions. Enhancement of connected load must be governed by Regulation 15, not Regulation 14(4). No Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4) is payable for enhancements or continued supply. The petitions are allowed to the extent stated; the specific demands Ext.P7 and Ext.P13 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petitions allowed in part; impugned demand for Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4) quashed. The court clarifies that for enhancement of connected load, the security deposit payable is under Regulation 15, not the Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4). The decision aligns with Indira’s case and limits the application of Regulation 14(4) to tenancy-related supply.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KOCHIN AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD.

Respondents

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM
SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri J. Julian Xavier
• Smt. M.S. Soujath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Jaice Jacob, S.C

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge the demand for an 'Additional Security Deposit' under Regulation 14(4) of the KSEB (Terms and Conditions of Supply) 2005. The Kerala High Court notes that prior to this judgment, it had negatived challenges to the validity of Regulation 14(4), but in Indira v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2014 (1) KLT 59) held that the Board cannot demand any Special Deposit beyond the security deposit from existing consumers; such Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4) can only be insisted as a pre-condition for providing service to tenants/occupiers. Once a connection is made to a tenant or occupier, the ongoing security deposit is that prescribed under Regulation 15. The court clarifies that the Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4) cannot be construed as a continuing security for the consumer. The Respondents argued that enhancement of connected load should be treated as a new service connection, invoking Regulation 16(ii). However, the court distinguishes enhancement from a new service and reiterates that Regulation 16(ii) contemplates security deposits under Regulation 15, not the Special Deposit of Regulation 14(4). Consequently, the impugned demands Ext.P7 (WP 33776/08) and Ext.P13 (WP 1092/2014) are quashed, aligning with Indira’s case and limiting the Special Deposit’s use to tenancy provisions only.

Provisions of Law Cited

Regulation 14(4) of the KSEB (Terms and Conditions of Supply) 2005Regulation 15 of the KSEB (Terms and Conditions of Supply) 2005Regulation 16(ii) of the KSEB (Terms and Conditions of Supply) 2005

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition challenges the demand for Additional Security Deposit under Regulation 14(4) as a precondition for supply; relies on the decision in Indira v. Kerala State Electricity Board to argue that Special Deposit cannot be demanded from existing consumers and that only the security deposit under Regulation 15 is payable after connection. The Board’s attempt to treat load enhancement as a ‘new service connection’ is incorrect; Regulation 14(4) cannot apply to ongoing connections, and the Special Deposit cannot be treated as ongoing security. The petitions seek quashing of Ext.P7/Ext.P13.

Contentions of Respondents

The Board contends Regulation 14(4) is a valid pre-condition for supply, including for tenants; it argues that enhancement of connected load is effectively a new service connection, justifying Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4) and that Regulation 16(ii) supports levying additional deposits in connection with load enhancement; the findings in Indira’s case are not applicable to their interpretation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Indira vs. Kerala State Electricity Board	2014 (1) KLT 59	Positive	The judgment relies on Indira's case to hold that the Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4) cannot be demanded from existing consumers and that such deposit is a pre-condition only for tenancy-related supply.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against KOCHIN AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD. v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 33776 of 2008 (U)** **-------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **KOCHIN AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD., SHIPYARD CAMPUS, KOCHI-15, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR V.PONNUSWAMY.** **BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SMT.M.S.SOUJATH** **RESPONDENT(S) :** **---------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM.** **3. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB, S.C** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2014, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.1092 OF 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **WP(C).No. 33776 of 2008 (U)** ## **-------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.04.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE HT AGREEMENT DATED 29.04.2005 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND KSE BOARD. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.10.2006, REQUESTING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF CONTRACT DEMAND OF 50 KVA FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.01.2008 FOR RS.1,12,000/ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE KSEB. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 05.03.2008 FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2008. EXT.P6(A): TRUE COPY BILL DATED 03.04.2008 FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2008. EXT.P6(B): TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 05.07.2008 FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2008. EXT.P6(C): TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 13.08.2008 FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2008. EXT.P6(D): TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 10.09.2008 FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 05.11.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER (FB)NO.2197/2008 DATED 02.09.2008.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------------------------** **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** Msd. **P.S.TO JUDGE.** **CR** C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------WP(C).NOs. 33776/2008 & 1092 of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 6th day of June, 2014 ## JUDGMENT In both these writ petitions the challenge is against demand for 'Additional Security Deposit' made under Regulation 14(4) of the KSEB (Terms and Conditions of Supply) 2005. Eventhough this court had negatived challenges raised against validity and legislative competence of Regulation 14(4), in the decision in **Indira vs. Kerala State Electricity Board (2014 (1) KLT 59)** it is held that the Board is not entitled to demand any 'Special Deposit' over and above the security deposit from existing consumers. It is held in the said decision that the special deposit contemplated under Regulation 14 (4) can be insisted only as a pre condition for providing service connection to tenants/occupiers. Once the connection is provided to any tenant or occupier the security deposit which he is bound to maintain is only the security deposit as prescribed under Regulation 15. The 'Special Deposit' insisted under Regulation WP(C). 33776/08 & 1092 /2014 2 14(4), being a pre condition for providing supply, cannot be construed as security deposit to be maintained while enjoying the connection by any tenant or occupier, is the finding. Therefore it is held that the Board is not entitled to make any demand for 'Special Deposit' over and above the security deposit which is insisted upon at any time when the connection is provided. 2. Evidently the decision in Indira's case cited supra will squarely apply with respect to the petitioner. Therefore the impugned demand in these writ petitions, Ext.P7 in WP(C). No.33776/2008 and Ext.P13 in WP(C).No.1092/2014, are hereby quashed. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Board raised a contention that whenever the petitioner seeks enhancement of the connected load the same has to be treated as a case of new service connection for the purpose of demanding security deposit. He relies on Regulation 16(ii) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply for contending that, eventhough the Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4) was not levied from the petitioner, he is liable to pay such 'Special Deposit' as and when enhancement of the connected load is sanctioned, because such WP(C). 33776/08 & 1092 /2014 3 enhancement need to be treated as new service connection. In this regard, the wordings of Regulation 14(4) assumes importance. 'Special Deposit' equal to the amount of security deposit is insisted with respect to an intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises to be electrified. It insist on payment of 'Special Deposit' whenever service connection is effected to the occupier or tenant. It basically deals with electrification of a consumer and providing of a service connection. But in the case of enhancement it is an existing consumer seeking additional power allocation. Going by dictum contained in **Indira's case** (cited supra), it was categorically held by this court that the Special Deposit contemplated under Regulation 14(4) can be insisted only as a pre-condition for providing service connection to tenants/occupiers. Once the connection is provided to any tenant or occupier the security deposit which he is bound to maintain is only the security deposit as prescribed under Regulation 15. Special Deposit under Regulation 14(4) being a pre-condition for providing supply, cannot be construed as security deposit to be maintained while enjoying the connection by any tenant or occupier. Therefore WP(C). 33776/08 & 1092 /2014 4 eventhough it is insisted in Regulation 16(ii) that security deposit can be levied on enhancement of the connected load calculated in a manner as in the case of new service connection, it contemplates only the security deposit as mentioned under Regulation 15 and not the Special Deposit under Regulation 14 (4). Hence it is made clear that the Additional Security Deposit with respect to the enhancement of contract demand/connected load can be levied only in accordance with Regulation 15 and no special deposit is liable to be paid under Regulation 14(4). C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/pn WP(C). 33776/08 & 1092 /2014 5 WP(C). 33776/08 & 1092 /2014 6