IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 2 of 1999(A) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOHNSON MATHEW MANAYANI, S/O.LATE DEVASSIA MATHAI, AGED 42, ADVOCATE, MONASTRY ROAD, COCHIN – 11. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR), SMT.C.G.AJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION (COLLEGE SECTION), ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009 ALONG WITH OP NO. 9078 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss O.P.NO.2/1999 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 23/10/97 FILED BEFORE II RESPONDENT. P1(A): COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 12/12/97 FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P1(B): COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 23/06/98 FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/08/98 PASSED BY THE II RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/10/2002 OF THE SECRETARY TO COCHIN CORPORATION. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/03/1999 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/01/2003 TO THE RESPONDENTS. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 1/04/2003 TO THE RESPONDENTS. P7: COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 24/06/2003 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 27/12/2003. P9: PROVISIONAL INVOICE DTD. 1/3/97 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10: BILL DTD. 18/10/1970 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P11: BILL AND NOTICE DTD.24/02/06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P12: LETTER DTD. /03/06 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. P13: LETTER DTD. NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF INSPECTION BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ON 27/08/98. R2(B): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE, COLLEGE SECTION, ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. Nos. 2 OF 1999 & 9078 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T By order dated 24/3/2007, the hearing of these cases were deferred in view of the pendency of M.P.Electricity Board v. Shiv Narayan (2005(4) KLT 485) before the Apex Court. Counsel for the Board has made available before me order dated 27/10/2005 allowing the appeal filed by the Board. 2. These original petitions are filed by two Advocates against the levy of tariff of electrical energy under LT VIB under the tariff order issued under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 3. One of the issues raised is that since the offices of the petitioners are functioning in their residential buildings, they are entitled to be classified as domestic consumers. It is now pointed out that the classification of the lawyers office separately is distinct from domestic as per the tariff orders issued by the Board has been held by this Court in the judgment in OP No.22624/02, following the Apex Court judgment in Govindaprabhu v. KSEB (AIR 1986 SC 1999). Therefore, the legality of the classification OP Nos.2/99 & 9078/03 :2 : does not arise for consideration once again. 4. The other contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that under the tariff orders, domestic consumers are entitled to consumption upto 20% of their consumption for other purposes. It is stated that their consumption for office purposes is less than 20% and hence, they should be continued to be treated as domestic consumers. 5. In so far as OP NO.2/99 is concerned, Ext.P2 order challenged in the original petition and also Ext.R2(a) produced along with the additional counter affidavit show that on an inspection that was held on 27/8/98, it was found by the respondents that out of the total connected load of 5.32 KW, total connected load of the office on the first floor of the building was 2.5 KW. On this basis, it is held that the consumption related to the office premises was more than 20% and therefore the consumer is not entitled to be classified as a domestic consumer and is liable to be classified under LT VI B. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the quantification done by the respondents is incorrect. If that be so, I should necessarily accept the quantification as shown in Ext.P2. OP Nos.2/99 & 9078/03 :3 : 6. In so far as the petitioner in OP No.9078/03 is concerned also, Ext.P5 produced along with the original petition show that in an inspection that was held in the first week of March, 2003, the upstair portion of the building was found to be used for Advocates office and it was therefore that the Board treated the consumer as one coming under LT VIB. Petitioner has not averred in the original petition that there was no inspection and there is also no case that the consumption is less than 20%. If that be so, classification made on the basis of the inspection also cannot be faulted. 7. Counsel for the petitioner in OP No.2/99 contended before me that before change of classification was effected, he was not issued any notice by the respondents. In my view, a notice as contended by the counsel was unnecessary for the reason that revision of tariff is effected by tariff orders published in the gazette in terms of the provisions contained under the Electricity (Supply) Act. The Act provides that once notification is published as above, the tariff orders comes into operation and if a tariff order comes into operation, all consumers are bound by such tariff orders. Neither the statute or any regulation framed by OP Nos.2/99 & 9078/03 :4 : the Board contemplates issue of any individual notice. If that be so, no consumer can claim anything more than what is provided in the statute. In the light of the above, I am not in a position to grant relief in either of the original petitions. Original petitions fail and are dismissed. However, if the petitioners have a case that their connected load in their office is less than 20%, they can make application to the Board for treating them as domestic consumers, in which case, needful shall be done by the respondents. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp