IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 923 of 2009(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.14538/2003 Dated 12/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- M/S.CHAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P. No.923 OF 2009 IN O.P NO. 14538 OF 2003 (E) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 O R D E R The original petition was disposed of by judgment dated 12th of June, 2009. In para 5 of the judgment, the petitioner's request for extension of Pre 92 tariff for a further period of 185 days was turned down by this Court on the conclusion that the petitioner enjoyed only 50% of the base quota, not for power cut reasons, but on account of the restrictions imposed by the Government Order dated 15/2/96. It is seeking review of the judgment declining the prayer for extension of the Pre 92 tariff, the review petition is filed. 2. Reliance is placed on Annexure 2 order and petitioner submits that in respect of another consumer, who suffered 50% power cut during 1/9/97 to 15/12/97 as against the 30% power cut that was imposed, relief sought for was granted. Petitioner submits that their case is identical to the case dealt with in Annexure 2 dated 23/7/09 and therefore, they are also entitled to parity in treatment. My attention is also drawn to the averments RP No. 923/09 :2 : in para 6 to 9 of the original petition, where the petitioner also says that for the period subsequent to 1/9/97, they suffered 50% power cut. Counsel also placed reliance on Exts.P8 to P10. 3. If as stated by the petitioner, their case is similarly situated to the case dealt with in Annexure 2, there is no reason why the petitioner should be declined similar treatment. Annexure 2 having passed by the Secretary of the Board, I feel it is only appropriate that the petitioner is given freedom to take up its grievance before the Secretary by filing appropriate representation. Therefore, the review petition is disposed of modifying para 6 of the judgment and giving liberty to the petitioner to urge their claim for extension of Pre 92 tariff by 185 days by making appropriate application before the Secretary of the Board, in which event, it is directed that the Secretary shall consider the claim in the light of the materials produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereof. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp