IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19494 of 2004(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUDHA PREM KUMAR, PROPRIETRIX, PHOTOTECH, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CENTRAL CIRCLE, NADAKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, NADAKAVU, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 19494/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE. P1(A) COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT. P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REVISED DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19494 OF 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT It is admitted by both sides that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22014/04. That judgment reads as follows: “The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P2 demand raised by the KSEB, treating his industrial unit as coming under LT VIIA instead of LT IV. The brief facts on the case are the following: 2. The petitioner is running a small scale industrial unit, which is a photo processing lab with a photo studio and a service counter attached to it. It was functioning since May 2002. It was registered as an SSI unit with the Industries Department. The petitioner was paying energy charges under the LT IV tariff. The said tariff mentions about SSI units engaged in computerised colour photo printing. But, while so, Ext.P2 bill was served on him, demanding energy charges under LT VIIA commercial tariff. In LT VIIA tariff, cinema studio is included. No other establishment connected with photography finds a place under the said tariff. So, the petitioner submits, the inclusion of his SSI unit under LT VIIA tariff is unsustainable. The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that apart from the computerised colour photo printing, the petitioner is running a studio and a sales counter also. It is a commercial venture and therefore, it has to come under LTVIIA tariff, it is submitted. 3. I feel that the using of a camera for taking photographs and also maintaining a counter, is an integral part of an SSI unit engaged in computerised colour photo printing. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be retained under LTIV tariff instead of LT W.P.(C)No.22014/04 2 VIIA commercial tariff. In the result, Ext.P2 is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed.” In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of that judgment. Consequently, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.22014/04 3