Kerala State Electricity Board and Others vs Mangaly Timber and Furniture

A.K. Basheer, J.—The Kerala State Electricity Board and its officials have come up in appeal calling in question the legality and propriety of the judgment in O.P. No. 12755 of 2001. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to treat the respondent as a Low Tension (LT) consumer in terms of Ext. P9 with effect from October 8, 1998 and to revise the bills accordingly.

Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge has egregiously erred in failing to notice that the respondent-consumer could not have claimed the benefit of conversion from HT to LT with effect from the date on which the Electrical Inspector had given sanction for energisation of the two generators installed by the respondent since, as is evident from Annexure I, the order passed by the Electrical Inspector was subject to the sanction to be accorded by the Board u/s 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (''the Act'' for short).

It is not disputed by the appellants that the Electrical Inspector had issued Annexure I order on October 8, 1998 giving sanction to the respondent to energise the two generators. It is yet again beyond dispute that the respondent had applied to the Board for sanction on October 28, 1998 as could be seen from Ext. P8. According to the Board, the application submitted by the respondent was defective in certain respects. Therefore, the respondent was directed to cure the defects. The application was re-presented after curing the defects only on November 13, 1998.

It is contended by the learned Counsel that going by the provisions contained in Section 44 of the Act, the Board is entitled to get an outer limit of three months to pass orders on the application. However, it is revealed from the records (it is not disputed by the Board also) that the order was passed by the Board only on July 27, 1999.

It is contended by the learned Counsel that the respondent would be entitled to get the benefit of conversion only from the date of certification of conversion given by the Board u/s 44 of the Act. But we are not inclined to accept the above plea. It took eight months for the Board to pass orders on the application for sanction. No explanation has been offered for the delay.

It is true that the Board gets an outer limit of three months to take a decision on the application; but that does not mean that the Board should necessarily be entitled to wait till the last day of the outer limit. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a period of one month can be reckoned as reasonable time to process the application and pass orders thereon. If that view is taken, sanction for conversion can be deemed to have come into effect from December 15, 1998.

Therefore, in modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we hold that the sanction for conversion shall be deemed to have come into effect on December 15, 1998 and the respondent shall be entitled to get the benefit of conversion from that date. The Board shall issue appropriate orders in that regard and demand shall be issued to the respondent accordingly.

With the above modification in the impugned judgment, the writ appeal is disposed of.