Kerala High Court
Dr.P.A.Kabeer vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 11 July, 2025
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 &
WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:50979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1815 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DR.P.A.KABEER, AGED 55 YEARS,
SON OF BAVA HAJI, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ALMAS HOSPITAL, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676503
BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
SRI.GEORGE RENOY
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695010
2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE,KSEB, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ASSESSING
OFFICER,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION KSEB, KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
4 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, C.C.51/52, NEAR KSEB SUB
STATION, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 &
WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:50979
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
BY ADV SRI.AJIT JOY FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. B. PREMOD, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 02.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C.11975/2025, THE COURT ON
11.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 &
WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:50979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11975 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION), PIN - 695004
2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676503
BY ADV SRI.AJIT JOY
RESPONDENT:
DR. P.A. KABEER,
CHAIRMAN &AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALMAS HOSPITAL,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676503
BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 02.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)1815/2025, THE COURT ON
11.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 &
WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:50979
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.1815/2025, 11975/2025] W.P.(C) No.1815 of 2025 is filed by a High Tension (HT) consumer (hereinafter referred to as the 'consumer') seeking implementation of the order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority, that allowed the appeal preferred by him, challenging a final order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. W.P(C) No.11975/2025 is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') and its officials challenging the very same order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 04.06.2024.
3. The consumer availed a HT service connection bearing consumer number 1365570001628 ( LCN - 15/4043) for running a hospital in the name and style ' Al Mas Hospital' under the jurisdiction of the respondent with a sanctioned connected load of WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:50979 1015.896 kW and contract demand of 300 kVA under HT II B tariff. On 17.10.2022, the Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEBL, Palakkad, Malappuram and Thrissur units, along with section officials of Electrical Section, Kottakkal, conducted a surprise inspection, a provisional assessment of Rs.1,58,75,161/- was issued to the appellant on 09.11.2022 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, amended in 2007 (the Electricity Act for brevity), alleging usage of unauthorised additional load (UAL) of 683 kW over and above the sanctioned load including unauthorized extension to other premises.
4. The provisional assessment was confirmed, and a final order was issued by the respondent vide No. 116/2022-23/ dated 28/01/2023. Aggrieved by the same, the consumer filed WP(C) No. 6156/2023 on 21.02.2023 before this Court, which was later withdrawn, and an appeal was filed after complying with all statutory formalities.
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:50979
5. The consumer contended that he had submitted an application to KSEBL for the prior approval of an additional requirement for 400kVA on 13.12.2019 as per regulation 99(1) and remitted AF and advance estimate amount. In continuation of the above application, he submitted a copy of the scheme approval dated 03.12.2020 from the Chief Electrical Inspector for a total load of 2054 kW on 08.12.2020. The delay in submission of the scheme was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After that, the installation work of additional equipment was carried out, which was completed during May 2023. A copy of the work agreement and purchase invoices was submitted. Since the installation was not completed, an application was again submitted for enhancing the CD from 300 kVA to 480 kVA without changing the connected load to KSEBL on 18.02.2022.
6. After a lapse of four months, on 06.06.2022, a letter was received from the licensee intimating some defects. A reply to this WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:50979 letter was sent on 08.06.2022. After that, no action was taken by the licensee, and APTS inspected the premises on 17.10.2022, and the Board issued the assessment referred to above. The consumer had already taken steps for obtaining sanction from the licensee for connecting the additional load to the existing system, as well as for increasing the Contract Demand as per the provisions in Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014. Since the electricity supply was for running a multi-speciality hospital, installation of additional equipment could not be carried out with a total shutdown, and hence the installation took a long duration for completion compared to other types of institutions or industries.
7. The energisation sanction for the additional load was obtained on 14.06.2023 from the Electrical Inspectorate, and the same was submitted with a completion report to the licensee for regularisation. The installation of additional equipment was started after obtaining necessary approval from the Electrical Inspector WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:50979 and completed only during May 2023. The energisation sanction was not obtained on 16.11.2022 as mentioned in the counter affidavit,which was only an extension of the scheme approval. The inspection by APTS and the assessment by the respondent were done during the time of installation and testing of additional equipment. The consumer challenged the assessment and stated that the above action of the respondent is not justifiable since any electrical equipment can be put into continuous operation only after testing. He argued that the additional equipment was not in continuous operation, and most of them were connected to the generator supply.
8. The Board contended that the above HT connection is registered in the name of the consumer under HT II B tariff with a sanctioned connected load of 1015.896KW and Contract Demand of 300 KVA for running the hospital. At the time of inspection, it was found that the appellant had connected and was using an WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:50979 Unauthorised Additional Load (UAL) of 683 KW, including an unauthorised extension (UAE) to other premises. The total load detected at the premises was 1698.772 kW. Ünauthorised Extension and connecting additional load without prior permission of the licensee falls under unauthorised use of electricity as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and a provisional assessment order was served to the appellant for Rs.1,58,75,161/- for a period of 12 months preceding the inspection. The consumer was heard, and the provisional assessment order was confirmed as final on 28.01.2023. Respondent admitted the receipt of the application for contract demand enhancement and argued that the application submitted by the appellant during 2019 was for enhancement of contract demand, without changing the connected load in the premises. The scheme approval for additional load was obtained by the appellant for a total load of 2054 kW on 08.12.2020 only. The UAL also included an extension to other premises without sanction. The WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:50979 additional equipment as per this scheme approval, was installed in various buildings and was found to be used by the appellant during inspection.
9. After the APTS inspection, the load was regularised on 26.02.2024 for 1902 kW with a contract demand of 750 kVA. The assessment was done for the UAL, and contract demand has no relevance in the process of assessment. So, the application for enhancement of contract demand without a change in connected load need not be considered for assessment. The appellant had admitted the usage of additional loads during the personal hearing. According to the consumer, during the COVID pandemic period, all wards in the hospital were utilised for the treatment of COVID-19 patients as per the directions of the State Government / District Administration. Board stated that even after the COVID pandemic period, the appellant did not remove the additional loads and continued using them, and that was why unauthorised loads were WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:50979 detected during the APTS inspection on 17.10.2022. By adding more load without the permission of the licensee and extending the supply to other premises, the petitioner had also violated the HT agreement conditions.
10. Based on the above contentions, the Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides, found the following lapses on the part of the Board.
"1. After receiving the application for additional power, licensee did not process the same as per rules.
2. Even when the appellant requested for enhancement of contract demand with the existing sanctioned connected load, licensee did not take any action. If a site inspection were conducted as per rules after receipt of application on 18.02.2022, any unauthorized use in the premises could have been detected then itself and appellant would have taken corrective measures.
3. If the requested contract demand of 480 kVA were sanctioned by the licensee, the appellant would have been relieved from paying 50% excess demand charges on account of RMD exceeding the contract demand to that extent.
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:50979
4. The monthly HT readings are taken by the concerned Assistant Engineer and he could have conducted an inspection in the premises and initiate actions to regularize the UAL/UAE if any, as per Kerala State Electricity Supply Code regulations."
11. The Appellate Authority found that without following the procedure mandated in the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code 2014 regarding processing of application for increasing the contract demand and additional load as per request, the licensee conducted an inspection by APTS in the premises and the Assessing officer issued the final order, that too not within the time frame as per rules. This shows a one-sided approach of the licensee denying the right of the consumer.. Accordingly, the final assessment order No. 116/2022-23/ dated 28/01/2023 for Rs. 1,58,75,161/- issued by the respondent Board was set aside with a direction to refund the amount remitted by the consumer along with applicable interest as per Reg: 158 (17) of the Supply Code, within 30 days. WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:50979
12. Heard the Senior Counsel, Sri. K.K. Chandran Pillai instructed by Sri. Augustine Joseph K.F. for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1815 of 2025 and Sri. Ajit Joy for the respondent, Electricity Board.
13. Based on the contentions raised by the parties, this court passed an interim order on 04.06.2025 as follows.
"Heard in part.
For a proper resolution of the disputes involved in this case, there will be a direction to the petitioners in both cases to file affidavits as to the steps taken pursuant to the application of the consumer for additional load dated 13.12.2019, and after the issuance of Ext.P8 on 18.12.2019. Each step taken by the parties shall be stated along with proof of the same, and shall be produced along with the affidavits. Post on 18.06.2025."
14. Pursuant to the above order, both sides filed affidavits. The affidavit filed by the consumer is extracted hereunder:
"2. This Hon'ble Court as per dated 04.06.2025 directed both parties in the writ petition to file affidavit as to the steps taken pursuant to the application of the consumer for additional load dated 13.12.2019 and after the issuance of WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:50979 Ext.P8 on 18.12.2019. It is respectfully stated that we have submitted application for additional load dated 13.12.2019 in respect of which the petitioners in the writ petition have not taken any steps for a long time. The document produced as Ext.P8 stating to be dated 18.12.2019 is a created document. We have not received any such document at any point of time and this document is produced before this Hon'ble Court only and that too at the belated stage along with this writ petition only. This is solely for misleading this Hon'ble Court and for causing loss to us.
3. At no point of time prior to the above writ petition which is dated 19.03.2025, a case based on ExtP8 was not there for the petitioners. If this was their case, this would have been pointed out by them at the first time itself. If the application submitted by us was a defective application and that was the reason for non-consideration of our application dated 13.12.2019, that would have been certainly claimed by them at the very inception and this would have been their first objection. Nowhere in the course of the proceedings, such a case is not raised by them. To the provisional assessment order, we have submitted our detailed objections. In the objections which is dated 23.11.2022 the fact that application was submitted on 13.12.2019 was specifically stated. But the assessing officer either while referring to the objections of the Board or while deciding the points, the above contention was WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:50979 not referred to. This is specifically because such a case was not there for the petitioner herein till recently.
4. Apart from the above, before the Appellate Authority also, explanations were given in writing. There also, the petitioners have no case that Ext.P8 reply has been given and that we have not complied with the directions in Ext.P8 which is dated 19.12.2019. The application dated 13.12.2019 was submitted and remitted the requested fee, the alleged letter dated 18.12.2019 is not seen recorded. That apart, we have applied under the Right to Information Act to get the details of the steps taken by the petitioners on our application dated 13.12.2019 subsequent to 13.12.2019. To the said application, a reply is given informing that the requested details are not available in their office. True copy of the application submitted by us on 03.10.2023 before the 1st petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1. True copy of the information received by us from the 2nd petitioner dated 31.10.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). We have also applied under the Right to Information Act for getting copy of the dispatch register of the relevant period. True copy of the application dated 17.06.2025 before the 2nd petitioner is produced herewith Exhibit R1(b). On the basis of the said application, we have received copy of the dispatch register of the office of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kottakkal for the relevant period. True copy of the WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:50979 dispatch register received from the 2nd petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(c). That apart, a look at Ext. P8 will show that it does not contain any dispatch number. It also does not bear the seal of the office. These facts along with Ext.R1(a) and (b) will show that the case now put for by the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court regarding giving of Ext.P8 communication is incorrect and the same is cooked up solely for causing loss to us.
5. In the order passed by the Appellate Authority which is Ext.P6 also, the filing of application on 31.12.2019 was considered by the appellate authority. There also, the petitioners have not raised a contention in the way in which it is now raised in the above writ petition. Had the petitioners herein raised such a contention before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority would have considered the said contention. It is not considered since it was not raised. The appellate Authority had in detail considered the lapses on the part of the petitioners from the date on which the application was submitted by us on 13.10.2022. Very detailed consideration of the lapses of the petitioners referring to the Rules and Regulations were done by the Appellate Authority. But a contention that they had given Ext.P8 reply and that the application submitted by us as incomplete application are not either referred, considered or answered in Ext.P6.
6. Apart from all the above the petitioners did not challenge WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:50979 the said order which was passed on 04.06.2024 till 21.03.2024. Much before, we had filed WPC No.1815 of 2025 on 15.01.2025 claiming direction for refund of the amount as ordered by Ext.P6. That writ petition was got adjourned on different occasions for instructions and ultimately the present writ petition was filed and moved without notice in which Ext.P8 is produced for the first time. If it was there, the petitioners would have certainly produced this and would have referred this in the first proceedings itself."
15. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board is extracted hereunder:
"2. This Hon'ble Court through Order dated 04.06.2025 had directed as follows:
"For a proper resolution of the disputes involved in this case, there will be a direction to the petitioners in both cases to file affidavits as to the steps taken pursuant to the application of the consumer for additional load dated 13.12.2019, and after the issuance of Ext.P8 on 18.12.2019. Each step taken by the parties shall be stated along with proof of the same, and shall be produced along with the affidavits."
3. In furtherance of the above I say that, subsequent to Ext P8 letter of 18.12.2019, my office did not receive a scheme approval or energization approval until 11.08.2023, when a completed application was submitted.
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:50979
4. On account of repeated increase in consumption over the contract demand of 300 kVA, for the months of 09/2021 (506.76 kVA), 11/2021 (486.80 kVA) and 12/2021 (488.40 kVA), the Deputy Chief Engineer of Tirur Electrical Circle, sent a letter dated 19.01.2022 produced as Exhibit P-9 to the respondent to take necessary action to increase the contract demand.
5. I say that the respondent sent a reply in the form of a letter dated 18.02.2022, produced as Exhibit P-10. In this letter the respondent expressed the need only to enhance the contract demand to 480 kVA alone. However, this was not a proper application with necessary supporting documents.
6. A reply dated 06.06.2022 was sent by the AE with intimation that a proper application with certain specific details ought to be submitted. A copy of this letter is produced as Exhibit P-11.
7. Subsequent to the inspection on 17.10.2022, a notice dated 21.10.2022 to remove the unauthorized load and further a disconnection notice dated 29.11.2022 produced as Exhibit P- 12 was served on the respondent.
8. Subsequently a completed application dated 11.08.2023, produced as Exhibit -P-13 was submitted by the respondent. This was accompanied by an energization approval dated 14.06.2023, produced as Exhibit P-14.
9. On 30.11.2023, intimation was given to the respondent to pay the estimated amount towards additional load, which was paid on 05.12.2023. Further the respondent paid an additional WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:50979 security deposit on 23.02.2024, following which a new agreement was signed with the respondent on 26.02.2024 with a Contract Demand of 750 kVA and a Connected Load of 1825.49 kW.
10. I say that, consequent to the submission by the respondent before the Appellate Authority that they had submitted an application dated 08.06.2022, the Deputy Chief Engineer called for the explanation of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kottakkal, the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent (AEE, ESD, Kottakkal) through letter dated 26.07.2024 produced as Exhibit P-15 replied that this office had not received an application from the respondent dated 08.06.2022.
11. I say that the letter dated 08.06.2022 that the respondent contends to have submitted has not been received by this office."
16. The procedure on receipt of an application is stipulated in Regulation 99 of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code,2014, and the same is extracted for convenience.
"Reg 99. Enhancement of connected load or contract demand.-
(1) Consumer shall apply to the licensee for enhancement of contract demand in case of consumers under demand based WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:50979 tariff and of connected load in the case of others, in the form specified in Annexure 11 (reapproved on 26/10/2016 as Annexure VII) to the Code and the licensee shall process the application form in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code.
(2) For site inspection as well as issuance and payment of demand note for the estimated cost of work if any, both the licensee and the applicant shall follow, mutatis mutandis the procedure and timelines as laid down in regulations 77 to 83 of the Code.
(3) The licensee shall give a written intimation along with the demand note to the consumer which shall include the following:-
(a) whether the additional power can be supplied at the existing supply voltage or at a higher voltage;
(b) addition or alteration, if any, required to be made to the distribution system and the expenditure to be borne by the consumer, on that account;
(c) amount of additional security deposit and expenditure for alteration of service line and apparatus, if any, to be deposited in advance by the consumer,
(d) change in classification of the consumer and applicability of tariff, if required; and
(e) any other information relevant to the issue. (4) The application for enhancement of load shall not be WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:50979 considered if the consumer is in arrears of payment of the dues payable to the licensee.
(5) If the enhancement of load is feasible, the consumer shall:-
(a) pay additional security deposit, expenditure for alteration of service line and apparatus, if any, required to be made, and the cost to be borne by the consumer for modification for distribution system if any, within fifteen days of receipt of the demand note; and
(b) execute a supplementary agreement;
(6) If the consumer pays the required charges and executes a supplementary agreement, the licensee shall execute the work of modification of the distribution system, service line or meter and other apparatus within the time line specified under regulation 85, mutatis mutandis, and sanction the additional contract demand or connected load. (7) The licensee shall issue order on the application for the enhancement of load within thirty days from the date of its receipt and intimate the applicant whether or not the enhancement of load is sanctioned.
(8) If the licensee does not intimate its decision on the application for the enhancement of load within the above period, sanction for enhancement of load or contract demand, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been granted with effect from the thirty first day of the date of submission of the application by the consumer. "
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:50979
17. It is not in dispute that an application from the consumer was received by the Board on 13.12.2019. However, the Board contends that they had returned the application through Ext.P8 on 18.12.2019 for producing the scheme approval. The receipt of Ext.P8 is stoutly denied by the consumer. It is submitted by the consumer that Ext.P8 communication dated 18.12.2019 was never received and the same was not produced till the filing of the writ petition by the Board on 19.03.2025 before this court, and the same is alleged to be a created document. Since the application dated 13.12.2019 is not disputed, the Board had an obligation under Regulation 99(7) to intimate the consumer about the application for enhancement of load within thirty days from the date of its receipt and intimate the consumer whether or not the enhancement of load is sanctioned. Admittedly, no orders have been passed by the Board intimating the consumer whether or not the enhancement of load was sanctioned. This is crucial as the issuance of Ext.P8 is totally disputed by the WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:50979 consumer.
18. Even assuming, for argument's sake, the consumer had received Ext.P8 referred to above, the fact that an application was made on 13.12.2019 is not disputed, and Ext.P8 only directed production of the scheme approval, which the petitioner admittedly received on 03.12.2020. True, there has been a request for further enhancement as it was the consumer's case that the hospital was being used as a COVID-19 hospital, and directions of the government are required to be followed. Their application was preferred long before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Appellate Authority found that since the application of the consumer was not responded to as required under the Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to a deemed grant under Regulation 99(8). None of the steps the licensee was obliged to take under the Regulation have been complied with in this case. Further, the Appellate Authority mentions an application made on 18.02.2022, WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:50979 which is produced by them as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.11975/2025, the contents of which read as follows:
"From AL-MAS HOSPITAL, CHANGUVETY, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, ZAM ZAM HOSPITAL KOTTAKKAL, KP1/214, 215 of Kottakkal G.P, LCN: 15/4043 To The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, KSEB, Tirur.
(Through the Assistant Engineer, Kottakkal) Sir, Sub: Enhancement of Contract demand Ref: Your letter No.300/DB17/HT/8 and 2021-22/2177 at 19-01-22 We refer to your letter above, herewith submitting the approved drawing with the application for increasing the Contract demand to 480 KVA. Also we wish to inform you that we have already having a Connected load of 1015KVA approved by the Electrical inspector and the maximum demand for the last one year is about 480KVA and above. Hence request your favour for the necessary action to increase the contract demand to 480KVA at the earliest.
I am herewith submitting the approved drawing and stamp WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 25 2025:KER:50979 paper for the revised agreement and also wish to inform you that we are ready to remit the required cash deposit for the increased contract demand.
Once again requesting your early action in this regard.
Yours faithfully, For Almas Hospital Dr. PA Kabeer Chairman & Managing Director Copy submitted to :
1. The Special officer revenue, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Tirur (Advance copy)
3. The Executive Engineer, KSEB, Thirurangadi."
19. The contents of Ext.P10 produced by the Board itself shows the pendency of an application made by the consumer for increasing the contract demand and also about the permission from the Electrical Inspector and speaks about the submission of the approved drawing and stamp paper for the revised agreement including the readiness to remit the the required cash deposit for WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 26 2025:KER:50979 the increased contract demand.
20. It is also relevant to note that the consumer had applied under the Right to Information Act to get details of the steps taken by the Board pursuant to their application dated 13.12.2019, to which a reply was given stating that the requested details were not available in the office of the Board. The petitioner also applied under the Right to Information Act for getting a copy of the despatch register of the relevant period, which was supplied and marked as Ext.R1(c). It is pertinent to note that even in Ext.R1(c) despatch register, nothing is stated about the delivery of Ext.P8, nor does it contain any despatch number or bear the seal of the office. Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted for want of any documents from the side of the Board. The contention of the Board that there was no proper application made till 28.07.2023, and in the absence of the same, the request of the petitioner could not have been considered, WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 27 2025:KER:50979 cannot be accepted.
21. The Appellate Authority had also pointed out each violation committed by the Board. In this context, it has to be noted that the writ petition by the consumer for implementation of the order of the Appellate Authority was filed on 15.01.2025 whereas writ petition No.11975/2025 filed by the Board challenging the order of the Appellate Authority was filed only on 21.03.2025 by producing Ext.P8 for the first time. It is also to be stated that in the counter affidavit filed to W.P.(C) No.1815/2025, Ext.P8 dated 18.12.2019 was not produced.
22. Given the above, the finding of the Appellate Authority that there was a complete violation of Regulation 99 cannot be faulted, more so, as the Board now says that no details are available in their office subsequent to the receipt of the application from the petitioner on 13.12.2019. It is also admitted that the Government had chosen the hospital for the treatment of COVID-19, as it was the WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 28 2025:KER:50979 only major hospital in the Malappuram District. There were online meetings every day under the chairmanship of the District Collector, and when the facility in the main building became insufficient, it was at the direction of the Committee that functioning started in the new building to accommodate COVID patients, for which power and water were required.
23. It is the specific case of the consumer that it was with the knowledge and consent of the Board that power was used in the new building, in the circumstances noted above. This contention of the petitioner is not denied by the Board, and during the meter readings, no defect/theft/ unauthorised use was pointed out. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the medical facilities required for treatment of the COVID patients including service of the Doctors, Nurses, supply of medicines, providing ICU facilities, Ambulance facilities and everything were arranged at the cost of the consumer and more than two crores is remaining on that WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 29 2025:KER:50979 account to be received from the Government.
24. The surprise inspection dated 17.10.2022 has to be seen in the context referred to above. As stated above, there are no materials at all to discredit the findings of the Appellate Authority. To the request under the Right to Information Act made by the Consumer, the Board has clearly stated that no records are available with them. As regards the allegation of unauthorised extension, it is the common case of the parties that the new building was also a part of the hospital and also part of the scheme approval of the Electrical Inspectorate and the load of the said construction was also shown in the additional load. While the Board regularised the load, the load attributed to the new building was also taken as an additional load.
25. On an overall consideration of the facts and the law obtaining in this case, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Authority in a judicial review. It is also the WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 30 2025:KER:50979 common case that the Board has since then granted approval, and the load is regularised now. Consequently, W.P.(C) No.11975/2025 filed by the Board is dismissed and W.P.(C) No.1815/2025 is allowed with a direction to the respondent Board to implement the order of the Appellate Authority within six weeks by either making the refund as directed in the order of the Appellate Authority or adjusting towards future charges payable by the consumer.
W.P.(C) No.1815/2025 is allowed as above, and W.P.(C) No.11975/2025 is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE DMR/-
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 31 2025:KER:50979 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11975/2025 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 A COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DATED 17.10.2022 PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, KOTTAKKAL.
Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09.11.2022 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT
ORDER ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT DATED
28.01.2023.
Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY NUMBERED AS APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2023.
Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2023.
Exhibit P-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2023.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
18.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1(a) FULL COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DATED
17.10.2022 PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION,
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 &
WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 32 2025:KER:50979
KOTTAKKAL.
Exhibit P2(a) WITH COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT
ORDER DATED 09.11.2022 ISSUED TO THE
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3(a) COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER
ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT DATED
28.01.2023.
Exhibit P4(a) COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY NUMBERED AS APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2023.
Exhibit P5(a) WITH COPY OF THE VERSION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2023 Exhibit P6(a) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2023.
Exhibit-P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER OF TIRUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, SENT A LETTER DATED 19.01.2022.
Exhibit-P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE FORM OF A LETTER DATED 18.02.2022.
Exhibit-P11 A COPY OF THIS LETTER DATED 6-6-2022. Exhibit-P12 THE TRUE COPY OF A NOTICE DATED 21.10.2022 TO REMOVE THE UNAUTHORIZED LOAD AND FURTHER A DISCONNECTION NOTICE DATED 29.11.2022.
WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 33 2025:KER:50979 Exhibit-P13 THE TRUE COPY OF A COMPLETED APPLICATION DATED 11.08.2023.
Exhibit-P14 THIS WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENERGIZATION APPROVAL DATED 14.06.2023.
Exhibit P15 THE 2™ RESPONDENT (AEE, ESD, KOTTAKKAL) THROUGH LETTER DATED 26.07.2024.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS Exhibit R1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY US ON 03.10.2023 BEFORE THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY US FROM THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 31.10.2023.
Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.06.2025 BEFORE THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL FROM THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE DATED 3.12.2020. Exhibit R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION AS GOT DOWNLOADED FROM THE SYSTEM.
Exhibit R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.02.2022 // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE WP(C) No.1815 OF 2025 & WP(C) No.11975 OF 2025 34 2025:KER:50979 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1815/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.3.2023 OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.62/22-23 DATED 9.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN UNDER
SECTION 126 (3) OF THE ACT DATED
23.11.2022.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3rd
RESPONDENT DATED 28.1.2023.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH PAYMENT RECEIPTS
DATED 19.7.2023.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2024 OF
THE 4th RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.8.2024.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE