Kerala High Court
Neduvathoor Grama Panchayath vs The Chief Engineer on 17 January, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 32762 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
NEDUVATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUVATHOOR, NEELESWARAM
(PO) KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,
POWER HOUSE, KOLLAM- 691 001.
3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE
OFFICE KOTTARAKARA.
4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B, KOTTARAKKARA WEST.
5 THE SUB ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B, KOTTARAKKARA WEST.
BY ADV G.KEERTHIVAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.32762/2015 -2-
JUDGMENT
The Neduvathoor Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary has
approached this court challenging Exts.P1, P2, P5 and P6 proceedings of the
Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) levying on the panchayat penalties for
unauthorised connected load. Exhibit P1 is the site mahazer prepared at the
time of inspection. Ext.P2 is a demand for an amount of Rs.20,658/- based on
the unauthorised load detected at the time of site inspection. On objections
being raised by the petitioner, Ext.P3 proceedings were issued by the
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kottarakkara rejecting the objections
raised by the petitioner and also finding that there was some mistakes in the
calculation of the amounts due from the petitioner and the actual amount due
from the petitioner is Rs.44,560/-. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P4
appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act before the Deputy Chief
Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kollam. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical
Circle, Kollam by Ext.P5 found that there is no merit in the appeal. It was also
found that the consumption pattern also reveals that there were unauthorised
connected load in the premises during the period in question. Since the
period for which the unauthorised connected load was detected could not be
ascertained, the penalization was restricted to the period of 12 months prior
to the date of inspection. This was in terms of the provisions contained in
Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act. Exhibit P6 is the demand issued to the
petitioner following the disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Chief Engineer
and after giving credit to the amounts remitted by the petitioner. The
outstanding demand against the petitioner as per Ext.P6 is Rs.26,913/- plus
interest of Rs.1900/-.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
impugned orders are unsustainable in law. It is submitted that there was no
material whatsoever to suggest that there was unauthorised connected load in
the premises of the panchayat. It is submitted that the panchayat was
constructing a new building and certain equipments had been shifted to the
existing building and this led to a determination of unauthorised connected
load. It is submitted that at any rate the penalization could not have been for a
period of 12 months and the penalization should have been restricted to a
period of 3 months. It is submitted that considering the fact that the
petitioner is a panchayat the Electricity Board ought to have reduced the
penalty to the minimum possible.
3. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the KSEB would
submit that when unauthorised connected load is detected, the petitioner is
liable to pay penal charges at twice the amount of fixed charges and charges
for consumption of electricity in terms of the provisions contained in Section
126 (6) of the Electricity Act. It is submitted that the provisions do not permit
the Board to reduce the quantum of penalty on account of the fact that the
entity penalized is a panchayat. It is submitted that the proceedings are
therefore clearly in accordance with the law and no fault can be found in
respect of the orders issued by the authorities. It is also pointed out that
where the period for which the unauthorised load was connected cannot be
ascertained with certainty, the provisions of Section 126 (5) of the Electricity
Act, 2003 provide that the period for which penal charges shall be levied is 12
months.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB, I am of the opinion
that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference in the
impugned orders. The question as to whether there was unauthorised
connected load or not is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the
petitioner is able to point out any glaring illegality in the determination of
unauthorised connected load. A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition
and the documents produced along with the writ petition do not indicate that
the petitioner has demonstrated any glaring illegality in the assessment of
unauthorised connected load in the premises of the panchayat. The only
contention taken is that certain equipments were shifted to the office of the
panchayat on account of construction of a new building. This by itself is no a
ground to hold that the determination of unauthorised connected load is
illegal in a manner. The proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer (Ext.P5)
while deciding Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner also indicates that the
Deputy Chief Engineer has reached the conclusion that the consumption
pattern also indicated that there was unauthorised connected load. Therefore
I find no reason to interfere with the determination of unauthorised
connected load at the premises of the petitioner panchayat. Coming to the
calculation of the penal charges going by the provisions contained in Sections
126 (5) and 126 (6) of the Electricity Act, it is clear that the determination of
penal charges has been in accordance with the provisions contained in
Section 126 (5) and Section 126 (6) of the Electricity Act. Section 126 (5) of
the Electricity Act indicates that where the period for which there was
unauthorised connected load cannot be determined with certainty the
penalization shall be for a period of 12 months. In the facts of the present
case it could not be ascertained with certainty as to the period for which the
panchayat had unauthorised connected load. Therefore the determination of
the period for which penal charges could be levied as a period of 12 months is
seems to be in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Therefore no
fault can be found to the authorities in having imposed a penalty for a period
of 12 months. Coming to the provisions of Section 126 (6) of the Electricity
Act the same provides for imposition of double the charges applicable to the
relevant category in the event of detection of unauthorised connected load.
Therefore no fault can be found with for levying twice the tariff applicable for
the relevant category as penal charges on account of unauthorised connected
load. Therefore I find no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings.
Considering the fact that this writ petition was pending in this court and this
court had passed an interim order staying the demands against the panchayat
on 28-10-2015 and since that interim order is continuing till date I am
inclined to direct that if the petitioner pays the amount demanded in Ext.P6
within a period of two weeks from from today, no further interest shall be
demanded and levied on the petitioner. Though this relief is objected to by the
learned Standing Counsel, I deem it appropriate to direct as above taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioner is a panchayat.
It is made clear that no extension of time will be granted to the
petitioner under any circumstances and if the petitioner does not pay the
amount demanded in Ext.P6 within the aforesaid period of two weeks it is
open to the respondent Board to demand statutory interest till the date of
payment.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32762/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 14.08.2013 PREPARED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT
P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 23.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.12.2013 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2014 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
