MARIA PALANA SOCIETY v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.-------------------------W.P.(C.) No.12068 of 2009 ---------------------------------Dated, this the 21st day of May, 2009J U D G M E N TThe contention raised in this writ petition, filed challengingExts.P8, P8(a) and P11 levying penalty on energy charges, is thatsuch penalty on energy charges is impermissible in terms of theprovisions contained under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would contendthat till Section 126 was amended by Amendment Act, 2007, evenaccording to the Board, penalty was payable only on fixed chargesand that subsequent to the amendment on the strength of Ext.P12,a Board order dated 07/02/2008, penalty is levied on energycharges as well. It is stated that so long as the Act does notcontemplate levy of penalty on energy charges, such levy isimpermissible, and cannot be legitimised by issuance of a Boardorder, namely Ext.P12.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned standing counsel appearing for the Board as also the 4threspondent. WP(C) No.12068/2009-2-4.In my view, the contention raised by the petitioner is onlyto be rejected. As can be seen from Section 126 of the ElectricityAct, 2003 as amended, once the Assessing Officer reaches theconclusion that unauthorised use of energy has taken place, theassessment shall be made for the entire period and the assessmentshall be at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for therelevant category of services. A reading of Section 45(3)(a) showsthat charges for electricity certified by a distribution licencee includefixed charges in addition to the charges for the actual electricitysupplied and consumed. In the light of the above statutoryprovisions, the irresistible conclusion is that tariff includes bothfixed charges and energy charges and that once the AssessingOfficer has reached the conclusion that unauthorised use ofelectricity has taken place, he is bound to make assessment at therate equal to twice the tariff applicable, which, includes the duespayable towards energy charges also. If that be so, the levy ofpenalty, as done in this case is unassailable and the petitionercannot seek the relief sought for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)jg
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 126; Amendment Act, 2007.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 21 May 2009. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.