IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23256 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL TARIFF) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SR. ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, KPFC BHAVANAM, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, KPFC BHAVANAM, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. P. NANDAKUMAR, SC, KSERC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 23256 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T The Secretary to the Kerala State Electricity Board as well as the Chief Engineer (Commercial Tariff ) are before this Court, being aggrieved of the direction given by the respondent Regulatory Commission vide Ext. P6, asking the Special Officer, Managing Committee, KSEB to appear 'in person' or through the Secretary of the Board, if they wish to offer any reasons as to why action should not be taken to impose penalty under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition shows that the respondent Commission, in exercise of the powers vested upon them passed Ext. P4 directives (along with some other aspects contained in other Chapters), whereby the Board was directed to give effect to the 15 directives as stipulated therein. It was also directed that if the Board has W.P.(C) No. 23256 OF 2010 2 any genuine ground, causing difficulty in implementing the directives as above, it could approach the Commission for a Review within one month. The case of the petitioners is that, out of the 15 directives, 9 pertain to 'Revenue' and that the Board has decided to challenge the same by filing appeal before the concerned Tribunal in New Delhi. With regard to other aspects, earnest efforts are being taken to implement the directives given by the Commission, which however require more time for collecting details from the various sources and to have it finalised and implemented, as specified. 3. Heard Mr. N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr.P. Nandakumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission. 4. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners submits that, immediately on receipt of Ext.P4 order passed by the Commission, the vital aspects related to implementation of the same were brought to the notice of the Commission by filing Ext. P5 dated 21.06.2010, particularly with reference to the W.P.(C) No. 23256 OF 2010 3 delay in commissioning of Kudamkulam Nuclear Power Plant and various other incidental aspects. Sanction of the Commission was also sought for to meet the shortfall in energy charges because of the delay in commissioning Kudamkulam project and to have it passed on to the shoulders of the consumers as fuel charge during the year 2010-11 itself. It is stated that the said request made before the Commission is still pending and it is without any regard to the same, that the Commission chose to issue Ext.P6 asking the Special Officer or the Secretary to appear 'in person' and to answer why adverse consequences should not follow, which hence is under challenge. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, though the second petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 dated 15.07.2010 in response to Ext.P6, the second petitioner was not permitted to represent the matter and the Commission insisted 'personal presence' of the Special Officer or Secretary of the Board in the hearing scheduled to be held on 17.07.2010. 5. With regard to the correctness and sustainability of the steps leading to issuance of Ext. P6, this Court finds that W.P.(C) No. 23256 OF 2010 4 Sec. 142 of the Electricity Act clearly contemplates issuance of such notice to 'such person', who has violated the direction/order given by the Commission and it is with this intent, the said notice has been issued to 'such persons'. This being the position, issuance of notice asking the Special Officer or the Secretary cannot be found fault with, as the same is in compliance with the statutory prescription. The remaining question is whether the matter could be proceeded with further, without considering Exts.P5 and P7 preferred by the petitioners, pointing out the actual facts and figures. 6. There is no case for the respondents that Ext.P5 has already been considered and finalised. Similarly, it is the admitted case of the respondents, that Ext.P7 as well has been received, though the same has been preferred by the Board after the prescribed period of one month. 7. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, the gravity of the issue involved and also the 'public interest' with regard to the various directives given by the Commission to be implemented by the Board in respect of the related issues, W.P.(C) No. 23256 OF 2010 5 this Court finds that the matter requires to be finalised by considering Exts. P5/P7 , treating the same as a 'Review Petition' on Ext.P4. 8. Accordingly, the respondent Commission is directed to consider Exts. P5/P7 as Review Petition and pass final orders thereon, in accordance with law, after hearing the authorised person of the Board, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment It is made clear that, Ext.P6 need not be acted upon, for the time being. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk