[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Thahira vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb on 17 December, 2025
2025:KER:97221
W.P(C) No.22214 of 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22214 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
THAHIRA,
AGED 63 YEARS,EVOOR (SOUTH), KEERIKKADU.P.O, KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690508
BY ADV SHRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004
2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
LTD, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690502.
3 ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHEPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690507
4 THE STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN,
CHARANGATTU BHAVAN, BUILDING NO.34/895, MAMANGALAM
ANCHUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, PIN-683025
5 CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL),
220 KV SUBSTATION COMPOUND, HMT COLONY.P.O, KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-683503.
SRI. RIJI RAJENDRAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.12.2025, THE COURT ON 17.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:97221
W.P(C) No.22214 of 2022 2
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
......................................................
W.P(C) No.22214 of 2022
.............................................................
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a consumer engaged in ice manufacturing under
Consumer No. 1155304022245 with LT-IV A demand-based tariff at
Electrical Section, Cheppad, challenges the orders of the Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter 'CGRF') dated 03.03.2022 and the
State Electricity Ombudsman dated 20.06.2022, and the consequential
demand cum disconnection notice dated 25.06.2022, issued by the 3 rd
respondent, Assistant Engineer, Cheppad.
2. The petitioner asserts that the energy meter had been
functioning properly and was regularly inspected and billed without
arrears. On 14.09.2021, APTS, Alappuzha, conducted an inspection and
alleged that the R-phase was recording 29.70% below the actual
consumption. Based on this, a short assessment bill of Rs.96,147/- was
issued pursuant to the demand notice dated 01.11.2021 under Section 45
2025:KER:97221
of the Electricity Act, read with Regulation 134 of the Kerala Electricity
Supply Code (hereinafter 'the Supply Code').
3. The petitioner approached the CGRF challenging the said
demand, and the Forum ordered that the short assessment be reassessed
by revising the bills of 07.2021 and 08.2021 based on the average
consumption computed from the three billing cycles after the
replacement of the phase wire, i.e., from 10.2021. This was further
challenged before the Ombudsman, and by order dated 20.06.2022, the
Ombudsman affirmed the decision of the CGRF by following the very same
reasoning. Consequent to the order of the ombudsman, the 3rd
respondent issued a Demand cum disconnection notice dated 25.06.2022
with a revised bill for payment of Rs. 99,293/-.
4. The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 mahazar merely records
sludge formation at the R-phase terminal and voltage of 30.4 V in R-phase
against 234 V and 230 V in the other phases, and that the Sub Engineer
had no authority to unilaterally determine 29.70% under-recording since
Regulation 18(2) of the Central Electricity Authority (Installation and
Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2016 permits meter accuracy testing
2025:KER:97221
only through NABL-accredited laboratories or mobile testing units. It is
urged that Ext.P1 contains no reference to the downloading of data by
APTS, yet the assessment is admittedly based on such extraneous
material. Exts.P2 to P5 show the meter status as "working" in July,
August, and September 2021; hence, any defect could only have arisen
between 01.09.2021 and 14.09.2021, and the defect was rectified on the
very day of inspection. The petitioner submits that the anomaly noted in
Ext.P1 is a "meter defect" within the meaning of Regulation 2(57) of the
Supply Code, and therefore, assessment could only be undertaken under
Regulation 125, which mandates billing based on the average of the three
preceding billing cycles and limits assessment to two cycles.
5. The petitioner further contends that Ext.P10 bill dated
01.11.2021, issued after Ext.P9 objection to the demand notice, violates
the mandatory procedure prescribed under Ext.P11 KSEB Circular dated
25.02.2016 for handling meter-defect cases, and that the failure to record
tamper-data in the mahazar demonstrates procedural irregularity. It is
argued that Ext.P13 order of the CGRF, directing that the short
assessment be revised by reassessing the bills for July and August 2021
based on the average consumption for the three billing cycles after
2025:KER:97221
rectification, i.e., from 10/2021, adopts a methodology not contemplated
under Regulation 125 or Rule 7(3) of the Electricity Rules, 2005, and is
therefore unsustainable. The Ombudsman, by Ext.P15 order dated
20.06.2022, is stated to have repeated the same error by mechanically
affirming the Forum's reasoning without considering the prior billing-
cycle data in Exts. P17 to P22.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, it is stated
that during the APTS inspection on 14.09.2021, the petitioner's premises
were found equipped with a CT-operated energy meter (PGR Powertek,
MF 20), and examination of the voltage connections revealed weathering
and patina formation at the R-phase voltage tapping point. The voltage
recorded in the meter was only 30.4 V in the R-phase, while the Y and B
phases recorded 234 V and 230 V, respectively; however, the actual R-
phase voltage measured with a multimeter was 232V. To quantify the
under-recording, a Zera MT-310 standard meter (Sl. No. 50043258), duly
calibrated by the Electrical Inspectorate, was used, and it showed a
29.70% negative error. The respondents contend that such an
abnormality could not have been detected during routine monthly meter
reading and required specialised technical analysis. Since the shortfall for
2025:KER:97221
the period from 03.07.2021 to 14.09.2021 was identified only upon
inspection, Regulation 134 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014,
authorises the licensee to assess and recover the undercharged amount.
They further submit that testing in an NABL-accredited laboratory was
not required because the meter itself was functioning properly and had
not been replaced; therefore, Regulation 125 of the Supply Code does not
apply as the anomaly arose from an external connection defect rather
than a "meter fault".
7. The respondents rely on Southern India Marine Products Co. v.
Kerala State Electricity Board and Others (MANU/KE/0404/1995), and
Indus Towers Limited v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Another, (W.P.
(C) No. 29244 of 2015) (Kerala High Court), to contend that where the
meter is intact, sealed, and in proper working condition, external issues
such as wrong connections, phase disconnection, or wiring defects do not
render it "faulty" and do not attract Regulation 125. They also note that
after the petitioner sought rectification, the R-phase tapping point was
cleaned and re-fixed, following which the meter began recording
accurately, confirming that the anomaly was external. The respondents
assert that the consumer cannot retain the benefit of reduced billing
2025:KER:97221
arising from such a connection defect and that the licensee is statutorily
entitled to recover the actual charges when under-recording is
established. Recovery of legitimately undercharged amounts is stated to
be consistent with Section 45 of the Electricity Act, the Supply Code
framework, and the public interest, and therefore, the assessment, as well
as the orders of the CGRF and the Ombudsman, are fully legal, valid, and
binding.
8. Heard Sri. K.P. Rajeevan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Sri. Riji Rajendran, learned Standing Counsel for the Board.
9. The CGRF, in its order dated 03.03.2022, found on verification
of the downloaded meter data produced by the APTS Wing that the R-
phase voltage had been abnormally low from 03.07.2021 onwards. At the
time of the APTS inspection, the R-phase voltage recorded was 30.4V. The
downloaded data showed wide fluctuations in R-phase voltage between
2.4V and 218V, with the voltage remaining below 100V for most of the
relevant period. The Forum concluded that applying the 29.7% error
detected by the Zera reference meter for the entire period was
inappropriate. It also noted that the anomaly was rectified on 14.09.2021
2025:KER:97221
by replacing the phase wires, after which the metering system functioned
properly. The Forum found the short assessment issued for the entire
month of September 2021 unsustainable. Examining the consumption
pattern between April 2021 and February 2022, it was found that higher
consumption was recorded post-rectification, clearly indicating that the
meter had under-recorded due to deteriorated phase wiring. The Forum
therefore directed that the short assessment be recomputed by applying
the average of the three billing cycles after replacement, i.e., from
October 2021, and revising the bills for July and August 2021 accordingly.
The Ombudsman concluded that the licensee was entitled to recover
undercharged amounts under Regulation 134 and upheld the
reassessment ordered by the CGRF.
10. In view of the above dispute, this Court on 18.11.2025
directed the Board to produce the petitioner's bills for the three months
preceding 14.09.2021, the date of inspection, and for the three months
thereafter. In compliance, the Standing Counsel produced Ext. R1(a)
series of bills. A comparison of the bills for the three months preceding
the inspection with those issued after the inspection and rectification
reveals a clear increase in consumption. This establishes that the meter
2025:KER:97221
had been under-recording prior to the inspection and rectification, and
therefore, the finding of the CGRF stands duly justified. There is no case
for the petitioner that the meter was faulty during this period.
11. In this case, the inspection revealed that patina (oxidation)
had developed at the connecting point of the phase wire-tapping voltage
from the R-phase to the meter, which was due to weathering and
atmospheric conditions. The anomaly was not with the energy meter
itself but with the external wiring connection that supplied voltage to the
meter, and it was rectified by replacing the affected phase wire, and after
cleaning and re-fixing the terminal, the meter began recording
accurately. Hence, this is not a case of a defective meter or faulty meter
within the meaning of Regulation 125 of the Supply Code. It is also to be
noted that Regulation 2(57) defines meter, and the connecting wire that
taps voltage from the R phase to the meter does not form part of the
meter as per the definition. Therefore, it is important to note that neither
the meter nor the CTs were defective.
12. The grievance forums relied upon contemporaneous
technical evidence, including downloaded meter data and an on-site
2025:KER:97221
accuracy test conducted with a calibrated Zera reference meter, which
confirmed under-recording. Their findings that the case does not fall
under Regulation 125 and that the reassessment should proceed under
Section 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Regulations 134, 136, and
152 of the Supply Code cannot be said to be wrong or illegal.
13. The method of reassessment adopted is rational, technically
supported, and consistent with the statutory framework governing
recovery of undercharged amounts. The petitioner's grievances regarding
non-detection by meter readers or the absence of NABL testing do not
absolve liability to pay for energy actually consumed when under-
recording is established on reliable technical evidence. For all the above
reasons, this Court finds no reason for interference in Exts.P13 and P15
orders of CGRF and Ombudsman respectively, and Ext.P16 demand.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
okb/
2025:KER:97221
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 22214 OF 2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASAR DATED 14.9.2021.
Exhibit P1a A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT P1.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.5530210600115
DATED 1.6.2021.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.5530210700644
DATED 1.7.2021.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.5530210800583
DATED 2.8.2021.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.5530210900385
DATED 1.9.2021.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AND BILL DATED
1.10.2021.
Exhibit P7 a A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT P7.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF CALCULATION STATEMENT
NO.INSP/202122/APTS DATED 14.9.2021.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER I
NO/.DB/APTS DATED 1.11.2021.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF BILL DATED 1.11.2021 ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10 a A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT P10.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.D(D&S)/D2/GENL-
08/2015 DATED 25.2.2016.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR FILING
COMPLAINT WITH THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL) DATED 22.9.2021.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.CGRF-CR/OP
NO.53/2021-22 - 403 DATED 3.3.2022.
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.P/021/22 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 21.3.2022 BEFORE THE
STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.6.2022 IN
APPEAL PETITION NO.P/021/2022 OF THE STATE
ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. DEMAND CUM
2025:KER:97221
DISCONNECTION NOTICE/CON NO.22245/CHD/2022-
23/50 DATED 25.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.5530210400112 DATED
1.4.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.5530210500113 DATED
1.5.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.5530210600115 DATED
1.6.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.5530210700644 DATED
1.7.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.5530210800583 DATED
2.8.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.5530210900385 DATED
1.9.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE OF BILLS PERTAINING TO
Series THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD RANGING FROM
