Kochi: In a relevant ruling, the Central Electricity Appellate Tribunal has directed a re-evaluation of 12-year-old electricity accounts after raising serious concerns over a conflict of interest—where an official who once presented a case later served as a judge in the same matter. The tribunal has given the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) three months to issue a fresh order, effectively quashing the Commission’s 2017 verdict.

The directive follows a petition by High Tension and Extra High Tension (HT-EHT) electricity consumers who alleged that S Venugopal, a former Finance director of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), had played a dual role—first as the person who prepared and presented the KSEB's revenue and expenditure figures, and later as a Commission member who ruled on the very same data.

The case dates back to orders issued by the KSERC in June 2011 and October 2012, which approved the expected revenue-expenditure for 2012–13 and the actual expenditure for 2010–11, respectively. During this process, the Commission had slashed the salary-related expenses projected by KSEB, prompting the Board to file an appeal before the tribunal.

In 2014, the tribunal ruled in favour of KSEB, asking the Commission to re-examine and reissue its order for the financial years 2010 to 2013. However, the revised order only came in March 2017. At that time, K Vikraman and S Venugopal were the members who passed the verdict, while Commission chairperson T M Manmohan issued a dissenting note. The majority decision upheld the revenue-expenditure figures submitted by the Board.

The controversy originates from the fact that when the disputed financials were being prepared, S Venugopal was the Finance Director at KSEB. He not only helped compile the figures but also presented KSEB’s case before the Commission. By the time the Commission re-evaluated the matter in 2017, Venugopal had become a member of the very body issuing the judgment.

HT-EHT consumers questioned the fairness of such an arrangement, arguing that a person who once acted as an advocate for the Board should not have sat in judgment over the same case. The tribunal agreed, stating in its ruling that it was improper and contrary to the principles of natural justice for someone to serve as both party and judge in the same matter.