Manager, Sullamussalam Science College, Areacode, Ugrapuram P.O., Malappuram District v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Executive Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Northern Region, Kozhikode, Assistant Engineer Electrical Section, K.S.E.B.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Shoba Annamma Eapen
- Judgment Date
- 2023-12-13
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of with directions: (i) petitioner to approach Appellate Authority under Section 127(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 by way of appeal with stay applications within one month from receipt of certified copy; (ii) operation of Exts.P10–P13 stayed for two months; (iii) appellate authority to consider period of writ petition in deciding the appeal; (iv) petitioner to produce certified copies of judgment and writ petition before the appellate authority; (v) non-compliance will forfeit benefits of the judgment.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Manager, Sullamussalam Science College, Areacode, Ugrapuram P.O., Malappuram District-673639
Respondents
- Kerala State Electricity Board
- Executive Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Northern Region, Kozhikode
- Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri K. Mohanakannan
- • Smt. A.R. Pravitha
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioner, an aided educational institution, challenged four provisional assessment bills (Exts.P1–P8) and final bills (Exts.P10–P13) issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) following inspections by the Anti Power Theft Squad. The institution runs four consumer connections under VIA and VIB tariffs; the respondents contend the premises were used for other self-financing institutions, which would justify higher tariffs (VIIA and later VI-F) and that VI.F tariff would have been applicable to the petitioner's connection. The petitioner argues that the tariff governing the four connections remains VIA/VIB (and, for consumer No. 30901, VIA/VIB), and contends the statutory remedy is to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, within 30 days of a final order issued under Section 126 for unauthorised use of electricity. The petitioner also sought to exempt the period of pendency of the writ petition from the appeal period. The court, after considering the material, disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 127(1) within one month, staying the operation of Exts.P10–P13 for two months, and directing that the appellate authority consider the writ petition period and require certified copies, with a warning of loss of benefits for non-compliance.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the college’s four connections are governed by tariff VIA and VIB and not VI.A/VI.B/VIIA as contended by the respondents. It asserts that provisional assessment bills (Exts.P1–P8) and the corresponding final bills (Exts.P10–P13) were issued without duly considering its objections and contentions. The petitioner insists that the statutory remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 127(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 within 30 days of the final assessment order under Section 126 for unauthorised use of electricity, and that the period during which the writ petition was pending should be excluded from the calculation. It prays for quashing Exts.P1–P8 and P10–P13 and for a declaration that its tariff remains VIA/VIB for the relevant consumer numbers. The petitioner seeks stay of the impugned bills consistent with the statutory remedy and requests the appellate authority to consider the writ period when deciding the merits.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondent Board contends that the electricity connection has been used for other self-financing institutions, justifying VIIA and VI-F tariffs instead of VIA/VIB for the petitioner's connections. It emphasizes the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 127(1) and maintains that the final orders issued under Section 126 warrant such proceedings. The Board submits that the petitioner, upon receiving the final bills, should have approached the appellate authority within the prescribed period and that the writ petition was a premature recourse. It asserts that the Writ Petition should be disposed of with directions to pursue the statutory route and that the stay should be granted only within the framework of law and the appellate process.
Diagnostic Tool
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 Manager, Sullamussalam Science College, Areacode, Ugrapuram P.O., Malappuram District v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Executive Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Northern Region, Kozhikode, Assistant Engineer Electrical Section, K.S.E.B. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.