Petitioner is the registered consumer of an electric connection provided with Con. No.5300 under the Electrical Section, Eloor. On a surprise inspection conducted by the Sub Engineer on 30-11-2013, theft and misuse of electricity was detected. The Authorised Officer had issued a provisional order of assessment imposing penalty under Section 126, as per Ext.P2, informing that the petitioner will be free to file objections against the provisional assessment within 7 days of receipt of the said order. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 objections against the provisional assessment. But in Ext.P4 the Authorised Officer had finalised the assessment stating that the petitioner had not filed any objections against the provisional assessment, within the time limit stipulated. The petitioner again approached the Authorised Officer in Ext.P5 notice pointing out that Ext.P3 objections was filed on 11-12-2013. On the basis of Ext.P5 the authorised officer afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 25-01-2014. The petitioner appeared before the authorised officer and submitted Ext.P7 'argument note'. Thereafter fresh order finalising the assessment was issued as per Ext.P8. In Ext.P8 it is mentioned that the petitioner had failed to submit any objections against the provisional assessment within the time limit of 7 days as stipulated in Ext.P2. However, on the basis of the objections received on 11-12- 2013 the matter was re-considered again. Contention raised by the petitioner is that the premises was transferred in favour of his son Sri. Anilkumar and he had let out the premises to one Tony Thomas and that the assessment has to be made against the tenant in occupation. But the authorised officer found that, as per the records, the connection is registered in favour of the petitioner and the same has not been transferred to the name of any other person till date. Hence discarding the contentions the provisional assessment was confirmed. It is challenging Ext.P2, P4 & P8 this writ petition is filed.
2. The petitioner has got an effective statutory remedy against the final order issued under Section 126, as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is per se illegal and unsustainable because the Authorised Officer had issued two orders and that he had failed to finalise the assessment within a period of 30 days. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P4 order was issued finalising the assessment, without considering the objection raised by the petitioner. When the petitioner had pointed out that he had submitted objections before finalising the assessment, the authorised officer took a lenient view and decided to consider the objections after affording opportunity to the petitioner. It is on the basis of such a decision that the matter was re-considered and a revised order was issued as per Ext.P8. Therefore the petitioner cannot take a contention that the 2nd order passed by the Authorised Officer is illegal. Merely because finalisation was delayed beyond the period of 30 days stipulated in the statute, validity of the order will be intact.
3. Learned counsel had raised a further contention that, assessment against the petitioner is unsustainable in view of the fact that the premises was occupied by the tenant Mr. Tony Thomas, at the time of inspection. Hence the assessment has to be made against the said person, is the contention. Reliance was placed on a decision of this court in Sojo Augustine V. K.S.E.B (2013 (4) KLT 756). It is held therein that in view of the provisions of Section 126 (1) penalty can be imposed on any person who is found indulging in unauthorised use of electricity and it need not be the registered consumer himself. Conclusions in the said judgment is that, imposition of penalty can be on any person who had indulged in unauthorised use of electricity and the person upon whom the provisional assessment is served is entitled to object the proposal. However it is held therein that, imposition of penalty under Section 126 can be made not only on the registered consumer but also on any other person indulging in unauthorised use of electricity. Going by the dictum it is clear that penalty can also be imposed against the registered consumer. It cannot be contended that imposition of penalty against the registered consumer will be vitiated if no action is proceeded against the occupier of the premises. However such a question need to be decided on the basis of various factual aspects. Since statute provided an effective remedy by way of appeal, this court is not proposing to adjudicate on that issue. The petitioner will be at liberty to seek remedy of appeal on all available ground.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is dismissed by reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy of appeal against the impugned assessment, as permissible under law.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge