P.Mohammedkutty vs The Assistant Executive Engineer
2021 Latest Caselaw 2790 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

      MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.1894 OF 2021(J)


PETITIONER:

               P.MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
               AGED 52 YEARS
               S/O MOIDEENKUTTY,
               POTTENGAL HOUSE,
               KALPAKANCHERY POST, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-
               676551.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
               SMT.ANJALI MENON

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
               KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL SUB
               DIVISION, PUTHANATHANI, PUNNATHALA POST, MALAPPURAM
               DISTRICT, PIN-676552.

      2        THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
               KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, KADUNGATHUKUNDU,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676103.



               SRI.N.SATHEESH,SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1894 OF 2021(J)

                                      2

                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of January 2021

Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

inspection work on repair of kitchen was going on and the workers

present on the spot might have taken unauthorized connection. It is

further argued that that lenient view in the matter may be taken due

to medical condition of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew my

attention to the document at Ext.P2 which is a provisional assessment

order. He argued that it is a clear case of theft of electricity and the

remedy of the petitioner lies else where.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the materials placed before me. In the provisional assessment

order, there is reference to the sight mahazar prepared on the basis

inspection conducted in the premises of the petitioner. The provisional

assessment order makes it clear that the officers of the Electricity

Board found that the consumer was using electricity and operating

devices without connecting the same to the meter. Thus, the case of

theft of electricity was detected during the surprise inspection of the

premises of the petitioner.

WP(C).No.1894 OF 2021(J)

5. The Electricity Act provides for civil as well as criminal

action for theft of electricity. The civil action is impugned in the

instant petition. The petitioner, by the communication at Ext.P2 is

informed about imposition of fine of Rs.2,92,691/- under Section 126

of the Electricity Act. The final assessment is yet to be made. The

petitioner has an opportunity to object the provisional assessment and

thereafter to challenge the final order according to the provisions of

the Electricity Act, 2003.

In this view of the matter, no case for interference at this stage

is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                   A.M.BADAR

Nsd                                                   JUDGE
//true copy//
PA to Judge
 WP(C).No.1894 OF 2021(J)




                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE

PETITIONER'S MOTHER DATED 19/12/2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER O. GB/ESD/ PTNI/13/2020-21 DATED 28/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 126 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 12.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 29/12/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TIRUR ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT AS ENGLISH TRANSLATION..