IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 32290 of 2006(R) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.M. JOSEPH, S/O.MATHEW, PARAMACHAK HOUSE, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD.(DIED) LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 2. ADDL P2. ANNAMMA V.K W/O LATE P.M.JOSEPH, PARAMAKKAL HOUSE, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. 3. ADDL.P3-REENA JOSE, D/O LATE P.M.JOSEPH, PARAMAKKAL HOUSE, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. 4. ADDL.P4- VIMALA JOSE, D/O LATE P.M. JOSEPH, PARAMAKAL HOUSE, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. 5. ADDL. P5- JOSE P.J. S/O LATE P.M. JOSEPH, PARAMAKKAL HOUSE,KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. (ADDL. P2 TO P5 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD. 20/08/11 IN IA 13688/11) BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, OLAVAKODE. ADV. SRI. T.R. RAJAN SC FOR KSEB FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32290 of 2006(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF REQUEST DATED 24/3/06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R2. EXT.P2: COPY OF REPLY DATED 28/3/06 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM R2. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER DATED 5/10/06 FROM R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DATED 13/10/06 FROM THE PETITIONER TO R2. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPLY DATED 4/11/06 OF R2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32290 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has two electric connections, one domestic and the other agricultural, in his farm house in Palakkad District. The respondent Board directed the petitioner to pay electricity charges at commercial rates in respect of the petitioner's domestic connection on the ground that he is operating 1HP motor connected to the domestic connection for making rubber sheets out of latex which is not a domestic purpose. The petitioner sought permission for connecting the motor to his agricultural connection. By Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to apply for a new connection for the motor. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P- 5, b) Hold that the petitioner is entitled to have the 1 HP Motor connected under Consumer No. 3680 shifted to his agricultural connection with Consumer No.3656, c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to shift his 1 H.P. motor connected to the power supplied under Consumer W.P.(C)No.32290/06 2 No.3680 to his agricultural connection with consumer No.3656 forthwith.” The petitioner now submits that the petitioner has come across a Board Order (FM) No.1462/02/TRAC/TO-1/2002 dated 24/10/2002, which provides that if a domestic consumer utilises electrical energy in some portion of their house for their own use for purposes other than domestic as defined under LT-1, when such connected load does not exceed 20% of the total connected load in their premises, they can be allowed to continue to use electrical energy from the domestic connection for the additional load also. The petitioner now confines his relief for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with the said Board Order. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board submits that the same provision is incorporated in the new tariff order issued under the Electricity Act 2003. 3. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall file a fresh representation in respect of the petitioner's claim before the 2nd respondent within two W.P.(C)No.32290/06 3 weeks from today. The 2nd respondent shall consider the said claim either under the Board Order referred to above or the provision in the new tariff order, whichever is applicable, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.32290/06 4