1. Petitioner is the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, a registered society with its office situated at the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner has certain electrical installations at the Golden Jubilee Advocates’ Chamber Complex above 650 volt, which require periodical inspection by the officials of the 3rd respondent, Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, as per the provisions under the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electrical Supply) Regulations, 2010.

                  1.1. Till 2017–2018, the petitioner was making payment towards the periodical inspection by the 3rd respondent of the installation on each occasion when an invoice was raised, and when payment was made, such inspections had been conducted. The annual inspection fee charged was Rs.41,660/- as per Ext. P1 invoice for the inspection in 2017-18.

                  1.2. Further, an increase of 5% was made to the inspection fee in the year 2018–19 as per G.O (P) No.44/18/Fin dated 17.03.2018, which resulted in the fee being hiked to Rs.43,745/- as per Ext. P2 invoice. No periodical inspection was conducted during the year 2019-20 and 2020-21, and no payment was made. It is submitted that as per Ext. P3 Government Order dated 28.01.2017, the periodic inspection and testing of installations of voltage above 650 Volt belonging to a consumer shall be carried out once every year by the Electrical Inspector or any officer appointed to assist the Electrical Inspector.

                  1.3. Thereafter, Ext. P4 Government Order dated 08.03.2019 was issued by the 1st respondent, increasing the inspection fee by 5%. Further, Ext. P5 invoice dated 13.01.2022 was issued for 2021–22, along with arrears for the two previous years. However, during the years 2019–20 and 2020–21, no payment was made and no inspections were conducted during those years, yet an invoice for Rs.1,51,905/- was issued, out of which Rs. 50,635/- pertained to the year 2021-22 and Rs.1,01,270/- was shown as arrears for the two years when no inspection was conducted. The petitioner addressed Ext. P6 letter dated 28.04.2022 to the 3rd respondent raising these issues, and Ext. P7 reply dated 28.10.2022 was issued stating that the request to recall the invoice had been forwarded to the 2nd respondent for consideration.

                  1.4. Further, periodical inspection was conducted for the period 2022–2023 and Ext. P8 invoice dated 03.12.2022 was issued demanding Rs.2,02,540/-, in which Rs.50,635/- was for the said period and the remaining amount represented arrears for the past three years. Ext. P9 demand notice dated 04.04.2023 was issued by the 3rd respondent demanding Rs.2,02,540/- as arrears of inspection fee and stated that the failure to pay within 15 days will result in disconnection of the electricity connection. Further, Ext. P10 invoice dated 25.05.2023 was issued demanding Rs.2,53,175/-, including arrears for the preceding four years. Further, Ext. P11 letter dated 25.10.2023 was issued by the 3rd respondent stating that the inspection fee for the periods 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22 cannot be exempted as periodical inspections were conducted.

                  1.5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the inspection process has been converted into a revenue-generating exercise, as the statutory provision does not contemplate inspection every year. As per Regulation 30(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, every installation shall be periodically inspected and tested at intervals not exceeding five years. Therefore, it is contended that the inspection is required to be conducted once in five years and that mandating inspection every year, as provided in the Government Order, amounts to converting the statutory scheme into a money-making venture.

                  1.6. It is further submitted that Regulation 116(1) of the said Regulations provides that the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, by order in writing, allow deviations in respect of matters referred to in these Regulations, except Regulation 30. Therefore, the State Government cannot modify Regulation 30, and Ext. P3 is ultra vires the enabling provisions in the Regulations. Inspection “at least once in five years” cannot be interpreted to mean “every year,” and the provision must be read reasonably so as not to impose an undue and harsh burden on consumers such as the petitioner. It is also contended that Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003, prescribes the powers of the State Government to make rules. No specific power is traceable to fix “periodical  inspection”  intervals  unless  such  power  is  merely incidental; therefore, the prescription of annual inspection and the fixation of inspection fee are illegal and ultra vires the parent Act.

                  1.7. It is further submitted that the Government Orders issued lack a statutory source of power to fix fees with respect to periodical inspection and are therefore arbitrary. None of the provisions of the CEA Regulations, 2010 (now repealed) or the 2023 CEA Regulations provides for any fee for inspection. Regulation 30 in the 2010 Regulations and Regulation 116 in the 2023 Regulations, when read with Regulation 134 of the 2023 Regulations, are stated to facilitate unregulated and unlimited discretion to the State Government, and such unfettered executive discretion is opposed to the constitutional scheme. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent, being the authority to determine the matter, must fix a definite period for inspection and that subordinate legislation must be specific and cannot permit unfettered discretion.

                  1.8. Accordingly, the petitioner prays to quash Ext. P3 Government Order dated 28.01.2017, Exts. P5, P8, P9 and P10 demand notices and Ext. P11 letter; to strike down Regulation 30 of the 2010 Regulations and Regulation 32 of the 2023 Regulations to the extent they facilitate unregulated and unlimited discretion for the State Government; and to declare that respondents 1 and 2 can neither fix nor demand a periodical inspection fee.

2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is submitted that the electrical installation at the Golden Jubilee Advocates’ Chamber Complex of the petitioner falls under the high tension category, with voltage exceeding 650 V, and such installations require periodical electrical inspections by the Department of Electrical Inspectorate once every year as per Paragraph 7(1)(a) of Ext. P3. Ext. P3 Government Order was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 162(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 2 and Regulations 30, 32, 36 and 43 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010.

                  2.1. It is further submitted that the periodical inspection fee is payable by the owner of the installation in advance as per Rule 9 of the Kerala Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors (Powers and Functions) Rules, 2013. The said Rules were issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 162(1) read with clause (o) of Section 180(2) of the Electricity Act. It is also submitted that inspections for the periods 2019–20 and 2020–21 were conducted and that Exts. R2(b) and R2(c) invoices were issued to the caretaker of the installation, who was present during the inspections, but the payment was not made by the petitioner.

                  2.2. It is contended that Regulation 30(2) of the 2010 Regulations provides that the periodical inspection and testing of installations of voltage above 650 V shall be carried out at intervals not exceeding five years by the Electrical Inspectorate and that, in view of the said provision, the State Government is competent to fix any interval below five years for such inspection. Accordingly, as per Ext. P3 Government Order, the interval has been fixed as once a year. Ext. P9 notice, stating that failure to pay the amount covered by the said notice would result in disconnection of the electric connection, was issued to the petitioner as per Rule 9 of Ext. R2(a).

3. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the respondents, it is stated that Exts. R2(b) and R2(c) are self-serving documents, unsigned and without any particulars regarding  dispatch  or  date  of  service  on  the  petitioner.  The respondents have also not referred to the said invoices in Exts. P5, P8, P9 or P10. It is further contended that no evidence has been produced to establish that an inspection was actually conducted, and no inspection report has been furnished. The petitioner also submits that, as per Rule 10 of Ext. R2(a), an appeal lies only against an “order” issued by the Electrical Inspector to the Chief Electrical Inspector or by the Chief Electrical Inspector to the State Government. No such order has been issued to the petitioner in the present case.

4. This Court, by order dated 09.01.2026, directed respondents 2 and 3 to file an affidavit specifying the officer who conducted the inspection of the premises in question, the date of such inspection, and to produce the report, if any, prepared pursuant to the alleged inspection. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed stating that inspections were conducted during 2019–20 and 2020–21 and that inspection fee invoices for the said years were generated as per the computer records in the office of the Electrical Inspectorate. It is stated that during 2019–20, Sri Aldous Mathew, Deputy Electrical Inspector, inspected the installation on 11.06.2019, and during 2020–21, Smt. Bindu T.K., Deputy Electrical Inspector, inspected the installation on 25.02.2021. It is further stated that invoices were issued to the caretaker and, since there were no major defects during the inspections, the minor defects were communicated to the caretaker at the site and the same were entered in the office software, as reflected in Exts. R3(d) and R3(e).

5. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the affidavit dated 27.01.2026, it is stated that in Exts. R3(d) and R3(e), the date of inspection is not shown. It is further submitted that no valid proof of service of the inspection reports at the petitioner’s premises at the relevant time has been produced. According to the petitioner, copies of the inspection reports were never furnished at the relevant time, and the said reports were not produced along with the original counter affidavit but were produced only pursuant to the direction of this Court, which raises doubts as to their authenticity. It is contended that the documents are self-serving in nature and do not bear the signature of the officials who allegedly conducted the inspection. It is further submitted that merely stating that defects were communicated to the caretaker does not constitute lawful service on the registered consumer and that, on both the said dates, being working days, there was no reason for the respondents not to communicate the same to the reception staff at the Chamber Complex.

6. Heard Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.B. Ramanand, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the prescription of annual inspection for installations exceeding 650 Volts by virtue of Ext. P3 Government Order can be sustained in the light of the statutory scheme under the Regulations framed by the Central Electricity Authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. Regulation 30 of the 2010 Regulations provides that every installation shall be periodically inspected and tested at intervals not exceeding five years. The expression “not exceeding five years” prescribes only the outer limit within which inspection is to be carried out. It does not prohibit a competent authority from prescribing a shorter interval for inspection, having regard to safety considerations. Therefore, the stipulation in Ext. P3 Government Order requiring inspection once a year cannot be said to be inconsistent with the statutory framework, as the interval fixed is within the maximum limit contemplated under the Central regulation.

8. In that view of the matter, Ext. P3 Government Order prescribing annual inspection of installations above 650 Volt cannot be said to be ultra vires the Regulations. The prescription of a shorter interval for inspection, so long as it does not exceed the maximum period provided in the Regulation, falls within the regulatory framework governing electrical safety.

9. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily with respect to the demand raised for the inspection fee for the years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021. In this context, it becomes relevant to examine the statutory procedure governing the levy and collection of the inspection fee. Rule 9 of the Kerala Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors (Powers and Functions) Rules, 2013, which provides that the Government may collect such fee for testing and inspection and generally for the services of Inspectors as may be directed by general or special orders. Sub-rule (2) further stipulates that the fee for every inspection under Regulation 30 shall be payable by the owner of the installation in advance. The requirement that the fee shall be payable in advance necessarily implies that the demand for inspection charges must be raised prior to the inspection being undertaken, and the owner of the installation must be afforded an opportunity to remit the same beforehand.

10. In the present case, the materials on record do not establish that any invoice or demand for inspection fee had been issued to the petitioner in advance as required under Rule 9 of the Kerala Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors (Powers and Functions) Rules, 2013. In the absence of such prior demand, the subsequent attempt to recover the inspection fee for the years 2019-2020 and 2020–2021 by treating the same as arrears is contrary to the statutory requirement and cannot be sustained.

11. Insofar as the grievance relating to the enhancement or fixation of the inspection fee is concerned, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary, in the facts of the present case, to adjudicate upon the competence to levy or revise such fee or the quantum thereof. However, it is made clear that any future demand for an inspection fee shall be preceded by the issuance of a notice or invoice in advance, as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Kerala Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors (Powers and Functions) Rules, 2013. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the fixation or quantum of such fee, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. All the contentions in that regard are left open.

12. This Court had passed an interim order dated 11.01.2024 directing the petitioner to remit the requisite inspection fee for the period 2021–2022 and the subsequent years. It is clarified that any amount remitted by the petitioner pursuant to the said interim order shall be adjusted towards future inspection charges, legally payable.

                  In the result, Ext. P3 Government Order dated 28.01.2017 is upheld. However, the demand raised by the respondents insofar as it relates to the inspection fee for the years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 will stand quashed.

                  The writ petition is disposed of as above.