IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 7933 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, KONDONTTY, MALAPPURAM SSA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC FOR BSNL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TVM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APT SQUARD, KOZHIKODE. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, PULIKKAL. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUARD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) Nos.28332/2008, 1168, 11610, 13451 & 14872 of 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.7933/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 19/04/2005 ISSUED FOR VAZHAYOOR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P2 : COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 19/04/2005 ISSUED FOR PULIKKAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/04/2005. P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/04/2005. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED FOR THE VAZHAYOOR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P6 : COPY OF the ORDER ISSUED FOR PULIKKAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P7 : COPY OF INTERIM ORDER ISSUED BY R2 FOR THE VAZHAYOOR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P8 : COPY OF INTERIM ORDER ISSUED BY THE R2 FOR THE PULIKKAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P9 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12/08/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE AREA MANAGER, BSNL TO R2. P10 : COPY OF DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE VAZHAYOOR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P11 : COPY OF DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE PULIKKAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P12 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL ISSUED BY R2 WITH REGARD TO VAZHAYOOR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P13 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL ISSUED BY R2 WITH REGARD TO PULIKKAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. P14 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/02/2008 ISSUED BY R3. P15 : COPY OF BILL ISSUED ALONG WITH EXT.P14 DATED 30/01/2008. P16 : COPY OF BILL ISSUED ALONG WITH EXT.P14 DATED 30/01/2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.7933, 28332 of 2008, 1168, 11610, 13451 & 14872 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The dispute in this batch of writ petitions is whether while computing the total connected load in the Telephone Exchanges of the BSNL, the load of Switched Mode Power Supply (SMPS) units including which are stand by, are liable to be reckoned. 2. It is stated that this issue was in dispute between the parties since long, and that while considering Writ Appeal No.1912/2004, a Division Bench of this Court directed that to resolve this issue, a Committee should be constituted and that the matter should be amicably sorted out. It is stated that in pursuance thereof, a committee was constituted and the Board had agreed to consider the cases of the BSNL as a special case. Ext.P2 appended to W(C) No.1168/2009 is the minutes of the meeting of the Committee. Accordingly, discussions were held and finally, the committee in its meeting held on 08/03/2006, resolved that while computing the total connected load, load of stand by equipments WP(C) No.7933/2008 & connected cases -2- will be excluded provided such equipments are separated from the main equipments by a change over switch, in such a way that either the main equipments or the stand by equipments only can function at a time. 3. The BSNL contends that with the advancement of technology, the systems now installed are hot stand by system and load sharing system of SMPS. It is stated that the hot stand by system functions in such a manner that an automatic switch over system is installed in the system itself and change over from one module to another is automatic without any human intervention. It is stated that the second type of SMPS is the load sharing system, in which any number of module can be connected and the load will be shared equally by the modules. It is stated that these are the systems presently installed by the BSNL and that the decision of the Committee on 08/03/2006 was without taking note of the aforesaid SMPS systems that are presently installed by the BSNL. 4. Thus the BSNL contends that the nature of the SMPS presently installed were not taken into account, while the committee took its decision on 08/03/2006. Board, on the other hand, WP(C) No.7933/2008 & connected cases -3- contends that the connected load, due to installation of the aforesaid SMPS, is liable to be reckoned. On account of the aforesaid dispute, bills were raised by the Board and the BSNL has called in question the same in these writ petitions. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board points out a judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.37763/2008, where according to the learned counsel, this Court has already upheld their contention that the SMPS of the type mentioned above is liable to be reckoned while fixing the connected load. He also refers me to the definition of ‘connected load’ as provided in the Terms and Conditions of Supply and the Supply Code. 6. In my view, this dispute is one arising out of the issue dealt with in Ext.P1 judgment and is a matter which ought to have been resolved by the parties by constituting a Committee as directed in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) No.28332/2008, especially since this is a technical issue and the technical experts of both the petitioner and the 1st respondent, will be more competent to deal with such issues. Having due regard to the judgment referred to above and the nature of the controversy, these writ petitions are WP(C) No.7933/2008 & connected cases -4- disposed of with the following directions:- That the dispute as to whether the SMPS units of the petitioner BSNL, is liable to be taken into account while computing the connected load in their exchanges, will be decided by the Committee, constituted by the Board as directed in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) No.28332/2008. Based on the decision so taken, further proceedings will be issued by the Board, if it is so warranted. It is directed that until a decision is taken as above, further proceedings for realisation of the amount claimed on this account shall be kept in abeyance. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg