IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16236 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. A. MOHANAN, S/O. N.K. APPUKUTTAN, NEDUVILIKALAM, OZHIYUPARA, PALLASSANA, PALAKKAD. 2. G. USHA, W/O. A.MOHANAN, NEDUVILIKALAM, OZHIYUPARA, PALLASSANA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETART,AGRICULTURAL DEPT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION KANCHIKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PALLASSANA, PALLAVOOR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 & 3 ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 16236 OF 2008 G -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order directing the third respondent to remit the electricity charges demanded from the petitioners as per Exts.P2 and P3 to the second respondent as expeditiously as possible. b) Declare that the petitioners are entitled to get electricity tariff concession for the paddy cultivation as per Ext.P1 Government Order. c) Direct the third respondent to comply with the direction contained in Ext.P1 forthwith. d) Grant an order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 demand notice. e) Restore the electricity connection of the petitioners with consumer Nos.3431/VDR dated 9.11.92 and 5646/VDR dated 8.11.2001." WPC.16236/08 G 2 2. According to petitioners, they are small scale agriculturists cultivating paddy in Palakkad. Ext.P1 is an order issued by the first respondent granting exemption from electricity charges. It is stated that the petitioners have applied before the second respondent for electric connection. The third respondent forwarded his recommendation that the petitioners are paddy cultivators and they were given connection. They have installed 5 HP Electric Motors for the purpose of irrigating their paddy fields. According to them, the consumers have to give necessary applications along with electricity bills to the second respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent in turn has to remit the electricity charges incurred by the farmers for paddy cultivation. Accordingly, they are entitled to electricity tariff concession. They were informed by Ext.P2 by the second respondent that no electricity charges have been remitted by the third respondent and an amount of Rs.27,460/= was demanded from the first petitioner. The second petitioner was also served with Ext.P3 demand notice for an amount of Rs.6,384/=. WPC.16236/08 G 3 Petitioners submitted Exts.P4 and P5 requests before the third respondent to remit the amounts demanded in Exts.P2 and P3. It has not been remitted. Petitioners have approached this Court for the reliefs as aforesaid. 3. A Statement has been filed by the third respondent, inter alia, stating as follows: "3. It is submitted that, on a verification of the concerned files in the office of this respondent, it is seen that the petitioners have not submitted any application for getting electricity tariff exemption, till date. They have not submitted Ext.P4 or P5 requests. The receipt of the same is also denied. 4. It is submitted that the statement in the Writ Petition that the agricultural Officer had forwarded the recommendation to the KSEB that they are paddy cultivators and are entitled to get electricity connection, is true. But, such recommendation/certificate is issued merely for getting electricity connection and not for tariff exemption. Such recommendations are being issued on their request and are not issued after WPC.16236/08 G 4 conducting any enquiry regarding their eligibility for getting tariff exemption. For the purpose of getting tariff exemption, they are required to submit applications, and further recommendations to the KSEB is given for exemption after conducting an enquiry for the purpose, which includes site inspection. 5. in the case of the petitioners, it is submitted that, they have not filed any application claiming exemption from electricity tariff. The office of this respondent is maintaining registers containing the details of the persons who have applied for tariff exemption and are found eligible for getting the benefit of Ext.P1 GO. If the petitioners had made application necessary follow up steps would have been taken in their cases also." 4. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Going by the pleadings as they stand, even though it is true that recommendations were made by the Agricultural officer, it was for getting electric connections. It is submitted that there was no enquiry in regard to the eligibility for tariff exemption. It is also WPC.16236/08 G 5 the undisputed position that the petitioners have not filed any application claiming exemption from electricity tariff. If that is so, as things stand, petitioners may not be entitled to relief. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that it is open to the petitioners to make applications for tariff exemption, no doubt, only with prospective operation. I find the petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of the relief. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. But, I make it clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the petitioners applying for exemption and claiming the benefits in accordance with law. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge