IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34051 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- AL SAFA ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.M.ABDUL JALEEL, AZHIKODE P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ERIYAD SECTION, P.O.ERIYAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 34051 OF 2008 D -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th January, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows: “a) Declare that pursuant to Ext.P6 order of the Regulatory Commission the Board is liable to refund/adjust the amount of Rs.9,60,412/- as computed in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition to the petitioner. b) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to collect energy charges and other charges from the petitioner only after adjusting the amounts due to the petitioner on account of the amounts over-charged by way of wrongful demand under LT-VII (A) instead of LT- IV. c) Declare that the amounts so overcharged on account of the wrong categorization under LT- VIIA is liable to carry interest at twice the bank rate in terms of Regulation 24(2) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2003 and other relevant provisions. d) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding WPC.34051/08 D 2 the respondents to adjust the amounts overcharged together with interest at twice the bank rate towards arrears as computed in paragraph 7 till the date of actual payment. e) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take coercive steps including disconnection for the amount as per Ext.P7 as the same is well within the amounts liable to be refunded/adjusted towards arrears owing to the petitioner. f) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading upto Ext.P8 and quash the same.” 2. The central issue to be decided in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is to be treated under LT IV tariff or LT VII A tariff. On the one hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Sea Food Processing Unit. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent Electricity Board that the petitioner is running a Freezing Unit. Petitioner relies on the decision of the Commission. The Commission has, no doubt, held that Sea Food Processing Units are to be treated under LT IV tariff and Freezing Units are to be treated under LT VIIA WPC.34051/08 D 3 tariff. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that if the petitioner's unit is a Freezing Unit, it is to be treated under LT VII A tariff. On the other hand, if it is a Sea Food Processing Unit, it is to be treated under LT IV tariff. A Statement is filed by the standing counsel for the respondent Electricity Board to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed by the petitioner. 3. The issue raised is essentially a factual issue and it is not necessary for this Court to consider this issue. Learned standing counsel would submit that it is open to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. In such circumstances, I feel that it is more appropriate that the petitioner is to be relegated to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ernakulam which can go into the issue raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner files a petition before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ernakulam within two weeks from today, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ernakulam WPC.34051/08 D 4 will consider the issue and take a decision in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also, within three months from the date of filing the petition. Till a decision is taken, the petitioner is permitted to pay under LT IV tariff. It is also made clear that it is open to the Electricity Board to raise the Bill under LT VII A tariff. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge