IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 1759 of 2007 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.12755/2001 Dated 17/01/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION) NORTH, K.S.E.B, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 4. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PALAKKAD. 5. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) K.S.E.B.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- MANGALY TIMBER AND FURNITURE PET BOTTLE DIVISION, DHONI, PALAKKAD A FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS POA HOLDER RAJAN M. MENON PROJECT CONSULTANT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BOC ROAD, KOPPAM AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1759 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 16th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The Kerala State Electricity Board and its officials have come up in appeal calling in question the legality and propriety of the judgment in O.P.No.12755 of 2001. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to treat the respondent as a Low Tension (LT) consumer in terms of Ext.P9 with effect from October 8, 1998 and to revise the bills accordingly. 2. Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge has egregiously erred in failing to notice that the respondent-consumer could not have claimed the benefit of conversion from HT to LT with effect from the date on which the Electrical Inspector had given sanction for energisation of the two generators installed by the respondent since, as is evident from Annexure I, the order passed by the W.A.No.1759 of 2007 - 2 - Electrical Inspector was subject to the sanction to be accorded by the Board under Section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short). 3. It is not disputed by the appellants that the Electrical Inspector had issued Annexure I order on October 8, 1998 giving sanction to the respondent to energise the two generators. It is yet again beyond dispute that the respondent had applied to the Board for sanction on October 28, 1998 as could be seen from Ext.P8. According to the Board, the application submitted by the respondent was defective in certain respects. Therefore, the respondent was directed to cure the defects. The application was re-presented after curing the defects only on November 13, 1998. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel that going by the provisions contained in Section 44 of the Act, the Board is entitled to get an outer limit of three months to pass orders on the application. However, it is revealed from the records (it is not disputed by the W.A.No.1759 of 2007 - 3 - Board also) that the order was passed by the Board only on July 27, 1999. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel that the respondent would be entitled to get the benefit of conversion only from the date of certification of conversion given by the Board under Section 44 of the Act. But we are not inclined to accept the above plea. It took eight months for the Board to pass orders on the application for sanction. No explanation has been offered for the delay. 6. It is true that the Board gets an outer limit of three months to take a decision on the application; but that does not mean that the Board should necessarily be entitled to wait till the last day of the outer limit. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a period of one month can be reckoned as reasonable time to process the application and pass orders thereon. If that view is taken, sanction for conversion can be deemed to have come into effect from December 15, 1998. W.A.No.1759 of 2007 - 4 - 7. Therefore, in modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we hold that the sanction for conversion shall be deemed to have come into effect on December 15, 1998 and the respondent shall be entitled to get the benefit of conversion from that date. The Board shall issue appropriate orders in that regard and demand shall be issued to the respondent accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned judgment, the writ appeal is disposed of. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K.Basheer, Judge vns