IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6642 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ GIRIJASHANKER, S/O. ILAYAKOCHU, MANAGING PARTNER, GRO ENTERPRISES, COCHIN FISHERIES HARBOUR, COCHIN-682 005. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.R.REKESH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SECTION, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SC SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. R4 SC BY SRI.T.K.KUNJU ABDULLA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.6642 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel Sri.P.P.Thajudeen for respondents 1 to 3 and standing counsel Sri.T.K.Kunju Abdulla for the fourth respondent. 2. Petitioner is an SSI unit involved in freezing and storage of marine products. Such establishments were classified under LT-IV tariff by treating them as industrial concerns. As per Ext.P6 tariff order, such establishments are brought under LT VII-A category with effect from 1- 12-2007 treating them as commercial establishments. Though the petitioner has a case that the establishment is an SSI unit with factories' licence, MPEDA recognition etc., I do not deem it appropriate to enter on an adjudication on the WPC6642/2008 -:2:- question of classification without the petitioner exhausting the statutory remedies available by way of appeal against the impugned tariff order. The nature of the activities in the establishment requires to be assessed from the technical point of view and therefore it may not be proper for this Court to entertain the writ petition excluding the statutory remedy by way of appeal. However, it is pointed out that the revised rate is above 100% of the LT IV rates. 3. Having regard to the above and the volume of demand, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the appellate authority against the impugned order, however directing that the petitioner will be permitted to pay off the demands relating to the month of December, 2007 and January, 2008 in four equal monthly instalments, payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from WPC6642/2008 -:3:- February, 2008. There shall be no disconnection if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied. It is also clarified that the petitioner will be liable to pay all accruing incidentals on account of the instalment facility extended hereby. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.