IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 10877 of 2003(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S. LAL STEELS PVT. LTD., NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION NORTH, KOZHIKODE. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 5. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEDER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KANJIKODE. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 TO 6 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.18677/2003 IN OP. NO.10877/2003 DISMISSED 09.12.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.10877 of 2003-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The main relief sought for in this original petition is for a direction to the respondents to grant concessional tariff to the petitioner's industrial unit for a period of five years as per the Government policy. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following: 2. As per Ext.P2, the Government as a measure of incentive, had granted concessional power tariff for a period of five years from the date of commercial production, to new units which start such production between 1.1.1992 and 31.12.1996. That was adopted by the Board as per Ext.P3. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of the order granting power allocation to the extent of 500 KVA as per Ext.P6, only on 5.6.1998 alone the power supply was effected. It is alleged that there was no laches on the part of the petitioner and the matter was delayed by the Board itself. It is on these factual basis, the petitioner has claimed various reliefs in the original petition. 3. On behalf of the respondents a detailed statement has been filed explaining their stand. It is averred that Ext.P6 order has been passed OP 10877/2003 2 pursuant to the petitioner's application dated 31.10.1996. The petitioner had filed an application for power allocation on 27.3.1995 to the extent of 2400 KVA. The then existing transformer from which power allocation was to be granted to the petitioner, was not sufficient to provide the said allocation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 31.10.1996 for power allocation to the extent of 500 KVA which was sanctioned as per Ext.P6. It is further averred that the completion report was submitted by the petitioner before the Electrical Inspector as per covering letter dated 24.2.1998 and by Ext.R6(a) order dated 25.5.1998 the Electrical Inspector, Palakkad granted sanction for the energisation of transformer and load in the premises in question. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner goes out of the scheme issued by the State Government and adopted by the Board. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Ext.P1 judgment of the Apex Court, submitted that the petitioner is entitled for a similar direction. Specific reference is made to the findings rendered in the operative portion of the judgment. But learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that on facts, the dictum laid down in the above quoted judgment will not apply, as the petitioner was in default. 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for concessional tariff during the period in question, is a matter yet to be decided by the respondents and OP 10877/2003 3 in that view of the matter, this court will not be justified in entering on the factual matrix which are in dispute between the parties. 6. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on the claim raised by the petitioner for concessional tariff. The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation claiming the said concession, within a period of one month from today before the second respondent and the second respondent will consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders within a further period of three months. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 10877/2003 4 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 10877 of 2003-T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 9th December, 2008.