AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice C.K. Abdul Rehim
Petitioner is the registered consumer of electric connection with Con. No. 271 provided under the 3rd respondent. The electric connection was
provided to a residential house under the domestic tariff. Pursuant to an inspection conducted on 06-11-2012 by the Anti-Power Theft Squad,
supply was disconnected alleging misuse of energy for commercial purpose, for running an office within the premises. A provisional bill u/s 126 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued, as evidenced from Ext.P6. According to the petitioner he had submitted objections to Ext.P6 bill, which was
refused acceptance by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the objections was sent by registered post to the 3rd respondent on 05-11-2012.
However, the petitioner had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum as per Ex.P7. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking to
quash Ext.P6. Inter alia he is seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 3. It is evident that Ext.P6 is a provisional assessment of penalty u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 126 provide a
comprehensive procedure for imposing penalty in case of detection of unauthorised use of electricity, It provides issuance of a provisional
assessment and finalisation of the same after affording opportunity to file objections and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Further,
Section 127 provides remedy of statutory appeal against the final assessment. Since Sections 126 and 127 by itself is a comprehensive Code, I am
of the opinion that the petitioner cannot approach the 2nd respondent challenging a penal assessment issued u/s 126, bye-passing the procedure
and remedies provided under those Sections. Therefore I am of the view that Ext.P7 complaint is not sustainable and no direction can be issued to
the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7.
Since it is contended that the petitioner had already submitted objections to Ext.P6 bill before the 3rd respondent, interest of justice will be
served if a direction is issued to consider such objections and to finalise the assessment after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner, in case no such objection is received by the 3rd respondent, it will be left open to the petitioner to submit fresh objections against Ext.P6
within one week from today. The 3rd respondent shall finalise the matter after considering the objections and after affording an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible. At any rate a decision shall be taken in this regard within a period of 3 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
it is stated that electric supply to the consumer has been disconnected invoking Section 135 (1A) of Electricity Act, 2003. But the last proviso
to Section 135 (1A) enables the consumer to get the supply restored on deposit of the amount assessed. But in the case at hand the provisional
assessment has not been finalised after considering the objections. Therefore I am of the view that continuance of disconnection will cause
prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to restore the electric connection, forthwith on receipt of a copy
of this judgment. However, this will not prevent the authorities from taking appropriate coercive steps in case default is committed with respect to
payment of any amount of penalty ultimately found liable.
It is further observed that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision which will be taken by the 3rd respondent in finalising the assessment, he
will be at liberty to pursue appellate remedy as provided u/s 127 before the competent authority. Needless to observe that the amount demanded
under Ext.P6 cannot be realised till a decision is taken as directed above.