IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2726 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.12306/2002 Dated 29/05/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- M/S.PALM FIBERS & YAMS TRADING CO., PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (TARIFF & COMMERCIAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, S.P.PURAM. R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. R2 TO R4 BY SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2726 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The appellant had two LT connections with consumer Nos.13070 and 13427. He commenced commercial production with effect from 11.07.94 and 14.07.95 from the said two units. The Government introduced a tariff concession for 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production in relation to units which start commercial production between 01.01.92 and 31.12.96. The two units of the petitioner which are in the same premises or compound were therefore eligible for the concession. With the passage of time, the LT supply was dismantled and the appellant obtained sanction of the Electrical Inspector as per Ext.R2(e) for energising the premises for which HT supply of energy was required. Following that, the premises was energised with HT supply on 15.05.98. 2. The claim of the petitioner for continued benefit of the WA No.2726 of 2009 -:2:- concessional tariff rate in terms of Ext.P1 Government Order was rejected by the KSEB authorities on the ground that the unit, as of now, is a new one and avails HT supply and is not the continuation of the earlier unit which was functioning with LT supply. 3. In the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the continued enjoyment of the concession in terms of Ext.P1 Government Order can be had only till the date from which the LT supplies were dismantled and the HT connection, being a new connection, commercial production utilising the HT connection commenced only after the relevant cut off date to avail the benefit of Ext.P1 Government Order. The petitioner filed a review petition before the learned Judge and that was also dismissed. Hence this Writ Appeal. 4. Before the learned Single judge in the Review, the petitioner/appellant had produced Annexure A1 document on the basis of which the continued benefit was sought by the petitioner stating that modifications may be issued in the form of directions which enable segregation of the supply and determination of the WA No.2726 of 2009 -:3:- concessional component in the total consumption. 5. With the materials on record the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the continued benefit of the concessional rate ought to have been permitted to be enjoyed till 31.12.96 at least by segregating such concessional component treating the total consumption of supply at HT rates. He further argued that such benefit would be for 5 years from the date of availing the benefit of supply and commencement of commercial production and that, the conversion of the LT connection into HT connection with the increased power load requirement, does not work against the appellant. 6. Having considered the materials on record and having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board, we are of the firm view that there is no legal error or factual infirmity in the finding in the impugned judgment. This is fundamentally because though the petitioner would project the LT supply as one that had got converted to HT supply with the passage of time. The materials would disclose otherwise. Ext.R2(c) is the certification WA No.2726 of 2009 -:4:- by the proceedings of the Electrical Inspector which is a body independent of the Board and without whose sanction there cannot be any energisation of the industrial premises. The petitioner sought for installation of 500 KVA Transformers 2 Nos, 250 KVA Generator 1 number for the premises in question. This was approved as a scheme and on completion report being furnished by Electrical Contractor, namely M/s.Electrolinks, Kalamassery, the Electrical Inspector has conducted inspection on three occasions and a defect report was issued initially. On compliance of the rectification in terms of the defect report, sanction was accorded in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the Indian Electricity Rules. The Electrical Inspector granted sanction to energise the installation covered under the completion report. The said completion report and energisation unequivocally show that the plea of the petitioner that it is merely a conversion of existing LT consumption into HT consumption can never be accepted. It also needs to be noticed that segregation of different components in terms of Annexure 2 is also not possible. WA No.2726 of 2009 -:5:- 7. Having regard to the fact that the unit for which the HT consumption was availed in terms of the sanction of the Electrical Inspector and further agreement between the appellant and the Board is for independent unit, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the finding in this regard by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge. ttb