For Information Purpose Only vs Kerala State Electricity Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 10587 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10587 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

For Information Purpose Only vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 29 March, 2021

WP(C) 8167/2021                                 1/5

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                             Present:
                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

                     Monday, the 29th day of March 2021/8th Chaithra, 1943
                                     WP(C) No.8167/2021
PETITIONER:

           For information purpose only
       NIZAR, AGED 53 YEARS
       S/O. IBRAHIM P.M., PURAKALOTHU HOUSE, NEDUMKULANGARAMALA,
       ATANAD, ERNAKULAM.

RESPONDENTS:

1.    KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

2.    ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
      ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB LTD,
      THRIKKAKARA, PIN-682 030

3.    ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
      ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VYTTILA, PIN-682 019

4.    SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKAKARA,
      EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 030

         Writ Petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit
ﬁled along with the WP(C) the High Court be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to
restore electricity supply to the petitioner in respect of consumer No.1155578004737
forthwith.


         This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and the aﬃdavit ﬁled
in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF,
Advocate for the petitioner and of STANDING COUNSEL for R1 to R3 (By order), the court
passed the following:
                            A.M.BADAR, J
          ===============================================
                       WP(C) No. 8167 of 2021
           ==============================================
             DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                             ORDER

For information purpose only Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no opportunity to the

petitioner to file objection to the provisional assessment and the

impugned communication at Ext.P2 is issued directing the petitioner

to pay an amount of Rs.2,44,863/-. It is further argued that even

after the objection, the petitioner has remedy of appeal by some

bigger pre-deposit in the matter. In this view of the matter,

according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents

are liable to restore the electric supply in the premises of the

petitioner as the procedure for claiming the amount is not followed

by the respondent Electricity Board.

2. The learned standing counsel takes notice for respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 and submits that this is case under Section 135 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 and therefore, there cannot be restoration of

electric supply unless and until the provisions of law are followed.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. It is seen

from the communication at Ext.P2 that during inspection, it was

found that the electric supply was byepassed in the weatherproof

wire before energy meter by using DP changeover switch. It is

alleged that because of this byepass, energy meter was not

For information purpose only registering the actual consumption and this is theft of electricity.

In this view of the matter, the respondents have directed the

petitioner to pay Rs.2,44,863/- towards civil liability.

4. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with theft

of electricity-whosoever dishonestly uses electricity for the

purpose other than for which the users of electricity was

authorized, taps, makes or causes to be made in connection with

overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, tampers

the meter etc, amounts to theft of electricity. Subsection 1A of

section 135 authorises the licencee or supplier to disconnect the

electric supply on detection of theft of electricity. Proviso clause of

this subsection makes it clear that it is only on deposit or

payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges, without

prejudice to the obligation to launch the complaint, the licensee

or supplier can restore the supply line of electricity.

5. In this view of the matter, prima facie, it is seen that

the case was that of theft of electricity and that civil liability is

assessed. Therefore, by way of interim arrangement, no direction

can be issued to the respondent to supply electricity to the

premises of the petitioner, unless and until the petitioner satisfies

For information purpose only this civil liability.

The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to rely on some

reported judgments in the matter. Post after vacation.

SD/-

                                                       A.M.BADAR

Nsd                                                      JUDGE




                                 /true copy/     Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
 KLHC010212492021               5/5

EXHIBIT P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DEMANDING WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 24.3.2001 DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 244863/- WITH COMPOUNDING FEE OF RS. 36000/- DATED 24.03.2021.

For information purpose only