Kerala High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs Alex Soharab V.F on 6 June, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3649 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, ALUVA TOWN,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101.
2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, EDAYAR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 662.
BY ADVS.
SRI. K. M. SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT. KAVERY S. THAMPI
RESPONDENTS:
ALEX SOHARAB V. F.,
M/S. SOUTHERN ENGINEERING CORPORATION,
V/830-A, DEVELOPMENT AREA, EDAYAR,
MUPPATHADOM, ALUVA - 683 110.
BY ADVS.
SRI. C. HARIKUMAR
SRI. VIZZY GEORGE KOKKAT
SRI. ANAND GOKULDAS
SMT. SRUTI RAVINDRANATHAN
SRI. ABHIRAM T. K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3649 OF 2021
2
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 3649 of 2021
-------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
impugning the decision of the Consumer Grievance Redressal
Forum (CGRF) in Exhibit P-3 dated 12.01.2017 to the extent of
direction by the CGRF for refund of the expenditure amount taken
from the respondent for enhancement of the capacity of the 100
kVA transformer to 250 kVA transformer.
2. The CGRF having considered the Regulation 36 of the of the
Supply Code, 2014 has held that since the total requirement i.e.
the existing and the enhanced requirement is less than 1MW, the
expenditure for meeting the additional load of the petitioner has
to be borne by the lincencee.
3. The Regulation 36 of Supply Code, 2014 are specific and
categorical which on reproduction read as under;
"36. Expenditure for extension or
upgradation or both of the distribution
system to be borne by the consumer.-
WP(C) NO. 3649 OF 2021
The expenditure for extension or
upgradation or both of the distribution
system undertaken exclusively for giving
new service connection to any person or a
collective body of persons or a developer
or a builder, or for enhancing the load
demand of a consumer or a collective
body of consumers or a developer or a
builder, shall be borne by the respective
applicant or consumer or collective body
of consumers or developer or builder, as
the case may be, in the following cases:-
(i) for meeting the demand of an
applicant with a contract demand above
one megawatt (MW);
(ii) for meeting the additional demand of
existing consumers, if the aggregate
demand including the additional demand
applied for, is above one megawatt (MW);
(iii) for meeting the demand of the
domestic or commercial or industrial
complex or colony constructed by a
developer or a builder with a demand
above one megawatt (MW);
(iv) for meeting the demand of a high rise
building irrespective of its demand;
WP(C) NO. 3649 OF 2021
(v) for meeting the demand of power
intensive unit irrespective of its demand;
and
(vi) for meeting the demand of a
consumer requesting for dedicated feeder
or protected load status irrespective of its
demand:
Provided that, if due to technical reasons,
the extension or upgradation or both to
be undertaken by the licensee as per this
regulation is more than the requirement of
such consumer, the expenditure for such
extension or upgradation or both to be
realised from the consumer shall be
limited to the proportionate expenditure."
4. The existing demand of the respondent was 20KW. The
respondent applied for additional load of 65KW. Thus, the total
load including the additional demand would become 85KW, which
is much lower than the 1MV and, therefore, for meeting the
additional demand of the consumer/respondent under Regulation
36 of the Supply Code, 2014 it is licensee who has to bear the
expenditure, if any, incured for meeting the additional demand of
65KW.
WP(C) NO. 3649 OF 2021
5. The respondent was illegally charged for upgrading the
existing transformer from 100 KVA to 250 KVA. This amount was
not required to be paid by the consumer/respondent and,
therefore, the CGRF has rightly held that for meeting the
additional demand of the respondent, it was the lincencee who
was required to bear the expenditure. Considering the regulation
36 of the Supply Code, 2014, I find no ground to interfere with the
order passed by the CGRF, which is impugned in this writ petition.
Hence the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
Svn
WP(C) NO. 3649 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3649/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL REGION AND NUMBERED
AS COMPLAINT NO.59/2016-17/531 DATED
26.8.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN COMPLAINT
NO.59/2016-17/531 DATED 22.9.2016 BEFORE THE
CHAIRPERSON CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL
FORUM, CENTRAL REGION.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CGRF
IN CGRF-CR/COMP. 59/2016-17/531 DATED
12.1.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2018
IN W.A.NO.1448/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
