Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Electricity Theft | Right to Challenge 12-Month Assessment Lies with the Consumer—But Proof is Key: Kerala High Court

27 October 2024 12:46 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Kerala High Court comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu dismissed an appeal filed by the Secretary of the Trichur Tennis Trust. The appellant challenged a Single Judge’s decision upholding the Kerala State Electricity Board’s (KSEB) 12-month assessment for unauthorized electricity usage under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court reiterated that when the start date of unauthorized consumption is unascertainable, the assessment must default to the 12-month period immediately preceding the date of inspection, placing the burden on the consumer to establish a shorter period.
The case arose from a surprise inspection conducted by KSEB's Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) at the Trichur Tennis Trust premises on October 9, 2014. The inspection revealed an additional unauthorized load of 50 KW that had been connected without the necessary approval. Following this discovery, KSEB issued a provisional bill to the Trust for ₹13,49,366, later confirmed through a final assessment order.
The Trichur Tennis Trust challenged this assessment before the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority, which reduced the assessment period to four months (from June 16, 2014, to October 9, 2014), on the assumption that unauthorized use began only when the appellant applied for an additional load in June 2014. KSEB, however, contended that Section 126(5) requires a 12-month default period when the start date of unauthorized use is uncertain. The Single Judge sided with KSEB, restoring the original 12-month assessment, prompting the Trust to appeal to the division bench.
The High Court’s analysis focused on the interpretation of Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which mandates a 12-month assessment period if the exact starting point of unauthorized consumption cannot be ascertained. Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu emphasized that the consumer bears the burden of proving the actual duration of unauthorized use if they seek to challenge the default 12-month assessment.
The court stated, "Section 126(5) clearly envisions that if the period during which unauthorized use of electricity has occurred is unascertainable, the assessment shall default to the 12-month period immediately preceding the inspection. It is incumbent on the consumer to provide evidence of a shorter period if they contest this assessment."
Erroneous Exercise of Jurisdiction by Appellate Authority
The court found that the Appellate Authority’s decision to limit the assessment period was based on assumptions rather than factual findings. The authority had incorrectly presumed that unauthorized consumption began only after the Trust applied for additional load in June 2014, without any concrete evidence to substantiate this.
The bench noted, “The Appellate Authority did not establish a firm factual basis regarding the actual commencement date of unauthorized consumption. Without such a jurisdictional finding, the reduction of the assessment period constituted an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.”
The Court further stated that merely applying for an additional load on a specific date does not suffice as proof that unauthorized use began on that date. In the absence of concrete evidence, the assessment must adhere to the 12-month default period prescribed by law.
The judgment underscores two key legal principles:
Burden of Proof on Consumer: When disputing a 12-month assessment for unauthorized electricity use, the consumer must produce evidence showing a shorter duration. Unsupported assertions or application dates do not satisfy this burden.
Limited Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority: The Appellate Authority cannot alter the assessment period under Section 126(5) without concrete findings on the commencement date of unauthorized usage. Any assumption-based interference constitutes an overreach of its jurisdiction.
Appeal Dismissed, 12-Month Assessment Period Upheld
The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s decision to reinstate the KSEB’s original 12-month assessment. The Court ruled that the Appellate Authority’s interference with the assessment was unjustified and unsupported by evidence, rendering its order legally unsustainable.

 

Date of Decision: October 16, 2024

Secretary, Trichur Tennis Trust v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited & Others

 

Latest Legal News