IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 23568 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- UNIQUE WOOD SYSTEMS, MUDICKAL (PO), PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 547, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.T.A.ABDULLA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDANT, ELECTRICAL SECTION VAZHAKULAM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 547. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO.19301 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 23568/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE BILL NO.226354 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 23568 of 2010 & 19301 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 demand notice issued by the second respondent demanding along with energy charges, additional cash deposit by way of security is under challenge in these writ petition. Though the petitioner does not dispute the levy of energy charges, it is contended that before the additional cash security was demanded, the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) did not issue a notice in terms of section 47(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and decide whether the security furnished by the petitioner is insufficient. 2. Sub section (1) of section 47 of the Act stipulates that a licensee may require any person, who requires a supply of electricity in pursuance of section 43, to give him reasonable security, as may be determined by regulations, for the payment to him of all monies which may become due to him (a) in respect of the electricity supplied to such person or (b) where any electric line or electrical plant or electric meter is to be provided for supplying electricity to such person, in respect of the provision of such line or plant or WPC Nos. 23568/10 & 19301/11 2 meter. It is stipulated that if the person fails to give such security, the distribution licensee may, if he thinks fit, refuse to give the supply of electricity or to provide the line or plant or meter for the period during which the failure continues. Sub section (2) of section 47 of the Act stipulates that where any person has not given such security as is mentioned in sub section (1) or the security given by any person has become invalid or insufficient, the distribution licencee may, by notice, require that person, within thirty days after the service of notice, to give him reasonable security for the payment of all monies which may become due to him in respect of the supply of electricity or provision of such line or plant or meter. Sub section (3) of section 47 of the Act stipulates that if the person referred to in sub section (2) fails to give such security, the distribution licensee may, if he thinks fit, discontinue the supply of electricity for the period during which the failure continues. 3. Sub clause (4) of Regulation 15 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 reads as follows: “The Board will review the adequacy of security of all consumers in the first quarter of every financial year or when tariff revision is effected based on the average WPC Nos. 23568/10 & 19301/11 3 consumption of the preceding financial year and charges and tariffs in force. Based on the review, the Board will demand for shortfall or adjust the excess security in the first quarter itself as the case may be, by giving 30 days notice to the consumer.” 4. A combined reading of the above referred provisions indicates that in the case of existing consumers, the Board is empowered to review the adequacy of security in the first quarter of every financial year or when tariff revision is effected, based on the average consumption of the preceding financial year and charges and tariffs in force and based on the review, the Board can demand additional security or adjust the excess security in the first quarter itself as the case may be, by giving 30 days notice to the consumer. The provisions of the Act or the regulations do not stipulate that the Board should issue a notice to the consumer and thereafter decide whether additional security should be furnished by the consumer or not. The review is to be made suo motu by the Board having regard to the average consumption of the consumer for the preceding financial year and based on the review of the consumption for the preceding financial year, the Board is empowered to ask the consumer to furnish additional security. At that stage, the Board is not bound to hear the consumer or issue notice to him before taking WPC Nos. 23568/10 & 19301/11 4 a decision as to whether additional cash security should be demanded. The petitioner's attempt is to read into section 47(2) of the Act and Regulation 15(4) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, a stipulation which is not incorporated therein. I am therefore not satisfied that there is any merit in the challenge to the demand for additional cash security. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petitions. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps