IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 12357 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, DR.SR.MARY LUCITA. BY ADV. MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, GANDHINAGAR. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM ADVS. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 & 2 MR. T.K.KUNHABDULLA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12357 of 2008(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2008 OF THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 14.8.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 12.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 21.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNTOF RS.16,701/- EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 19.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,428/- EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTEE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 12357 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an educational institution. They have been directed by the respondents to pay electricity charges under LT VII A Tariff. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges only under LT VIA Tariff. The petitioner submits that the position of law in that respect has been declared in favour of the petitioner in the decision of Bro. Joseph Antony v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2009(3) KLT 1022]. 2. I have heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents also. The standing counsel could not dispute the fact that the issue involved is covered in favour of the petitioner in the above said decision. But the standing counsel pointed out that that decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court in an SLP filed by the KSEB and therefore the same cannot be relied upon to give the petitioner the same relief. 3. A Division Bench of this court has, in Abdul Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another [2009 (4) KHC W.P(C) No. 12357 of 2008 -2- 283 (DB)] held that even when a decision of a Division Bench of this court is stayed by the Supreme Court, the law declared by the Division Bench in that decision is binding on the single Judges of this court and the single Judges are bound to follow the ratio of that decision in identical cases. That being so, notwithstanding the fact that the above said decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court, I am bound to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the ratio of that decision. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned bills are quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges only under LT VI A Tariff. Any excess amounts paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted against the future bills of the petitioner. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge