IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31673 of 2006(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- P. SANKARA NARAYANAN, S/O.P. AMMINI BRAHMINI AMMA, `HARITHAM', IRUVETTY, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDHUYTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB,, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB FOR R.1,2 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31673/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO.(MS) 73/97/AD DT 1.3.1997. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.235/98/AD DT 31.10.1998. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.30/1999/AGRICULTURE DT 4.2.1999. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE K.S.E.B. TO THE PETITIONER DT 9.9.2006. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 16.11.2006. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DT 1.12.2006. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31673 OF 2006 (U) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that he is an agriculturist, who was availing of power supply under LT V tariff. He is claiming the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3 orders issued by the 4th respondent extending the benefit of free supply of energy to paddy cultivators and also other cultivators having land upto to 2 hectares. According to the petitioner, immediately on the issuance of the scheme, way back in 1997 itself, being eligible for the benefit, his mother had applied for free supply of energy. His mother's eligibility was accepted and the benefit of the scheme was also extended to her. Petitioner submits that on that basis, they were not being issued any invoice, but however, he was issued Ext.P4 dated 9/9/06 demanding an amount of Rs.5,994.05 together with interest of Rs.2,474 for the period April 1999 to December 2006. It is stated that for non payment of the aforesaid amount, supply was disconnected. That led the petitioner to file this writ petition praying for a declaration that he is entitled to be exempted from payment of electricity charges for LT V connection and also for a WPC 31673/06 :2 : direction to the respondents to reconnect the power supply. 2. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ammini Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2002(3) KLT 553), which according to the petitioner dealt with a case identical in all respects. 3. Learned Government Pleader referred me to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, although going by the extent of land held by the petitioner, the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of the scheme, still as the 3rd respondent had not received any application from the petitioner, he was not extended the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3 referred to above. 4. Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board referred me to Section 65 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and submits that although the consumer had paid the energy charges till March 1999, default was committed from April 1999 and it was therefore that Ext.P4 invoice was issued. 5. Admittedly, Exts.P1 to P3 reflects the policy decision of the Government, providing for free supply of energy to agriculturists cultivating paddy, without any limit to its extent. WPC 31673/06 :3 : The scheme also provides for free supply of energy to agriculturists engaged in other cultivations and having agricultural land upto an extent of 2 hectares. Ext.P3 Government order dated 4/2/99 is a consolidated one which shows that the Agricultural Officers are required to submit the list of eligible persons and they are also to make payment of the energy charges to the electricity board and it is on that basis, the scheme is to be implemented. 6. Counter affidavit filed by the Government would show that though they accept the eligibility of the petitioner, their only complaint is that no application has been received from the petitioner. Although the petitioner contends that his mother had submitted an application way back in 1997 itself, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate this contention. 7. Having regard to the fact that the Government have accepted the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of the scheme and also in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to by the counsel for the petitioner where also liberty was given to the petitioners therein to make applications claiming the benefit of the scheme, I dispose of this WPC 31673/06 :4 : writ petition with the following directions. (1) That it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the 3rd respondent along with all other documents, claiming the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3 schemes referred to above. (2) It is directed that if such an application with necessary documents is received from the petitioner as above, within 4 weeks thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall inspect the agricultural land of the petitioner and assess his eligibility for the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3. (3) On such assessment, if the 3rd respondent finds that the petitioner is eligible, the 3rd respondent shall immediately take steps for extending the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3 schemes to the petitioner without any further delay in this matter. (4) In so far as the liability as per Ext.P4 is concerned, counsel for the respondent Board insisted that the amount should be paid by the petitioner while the petitioner contended that it was accepting his eligibility for the benefit of the scheme that bills were not raised since April, 1999. (5) Irrespective of the controversy, it is directed that if the petitioner is found to be eligible for the benefit of the scheme, WPC 31673/06 :5 : necessarily the benefit of the scheme should enure to the petitioner from the date from which the 3rd respondent finds the petitioner eligible for the same. (6) Therefore, I leave it open to the 3rd respondent to assess the effective date from which the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of the scheme and it is directed that from that date onwards the petitioner will be eligible for the benefit of the scheme and it is for the petitioner to discharge the liability for the previous period, if any. (7) It is directed that in case the 3rd respondent certifies the eligibility of the petitioner, on the petitioner complying with the other procedural requirements, supply to his premises will be reconnected. (8) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp