IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13090 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------------- HI-TECH ELECTROTHERMICS PVT.LTD., INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, MUPPATHADAM P.O. ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI.P.S.UNNIKRISHNAN BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. KERALA STTE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. FULL TIME MEMBERS, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.13090 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, had established an industrial unit for the manufacture of Calcium Carbide and Ferro Alloys. It is stated that they were a High Tension Consumer of the respondent Board. The unit functioned from 1995 till about December, 2004. 2. According to the petitioner, on account of the non payment of the dues to the Board, supply was disconnected on 08/12/2004. Although there is a dispute that the power supply was reconnected pursuant to the orders of this Court, I do not think it necessary for this Court to pronounce on that issue. The petitioner submits that they wanted to settle the liability, which led to the disconnection of power supply. Bereft of all details, it is to be stated that the amount in default represents the liability that the petitioner was called upon to pay denying the benefit of Pre 92 concessional tariff. The claim of the petitioner for the benefit of Pre WP(C) No.13090/2009 -2- 92 tariff was declined by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, where, however, it was directed that the interest liability of the petitioner will be only to pay @ 12%. According to the petitioner, that issue is pending consideration of the Apex Court. 3. It was in the meanwhile, that the petitioner wanted to settle the liability, apparently for transferring the industrial estate to another company. While so, the Board had also offered One Time Settlement Scheme. It is stated that during pendency of the SLP before the Apex Court, as the petitioner wanted to settle the liability, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P5 judgment enabling the petitioner to discharge the liability in instalments in the manner as directed therein and subject to the outcome of the SLP. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to the directions in the judgment, they made payments and as on 31/12/2008, they made a total payment of Rs.1.21 crores. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondents to inform whether any further amount is still outstanding and the request was replied by Ext.P8 informing that an amount of Rs.30,92,246/- was still remaining due. The petitioner, thereafter WP(C) No.13090/2009 -3- filed Ext.P9 contending that in the light of Ext.P2 judgment directing reduction of interest, the payment made by the petitioner is in excess of what was actually due and that, at any rate, the claim in Ext.P8 was unsustainable. Ext.P8 was called in question before this Court in WPC No.1057/2009 and the Board was directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner disputing the liability that was sought to be fastened on them. 5. During this period, proposal of the petitioner to transfer the industrial estate was pending consideration of the authorities. The District Industries Centre, issued Ext.P12, requiring the petitioner to produce certain documents including a No Due Certificate issued by the respondent Board to consider the request of the petitioner for transferring the industry. Meanwhile, the Board also issued Ext.P13 dated 05/01/2009 reducing the interest. This was also claimed by the petitioner, when the disputed question of his liability was considered pursuant to Ext.P11. Finally, the Board passed Ext.P14 quantifying petitioner's liability at Rs.33,01,881/- as on 30/04/2009. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed. 6. Although, several contentions have been raised by the WP(C) No.13090/2009 -4- petitioner, the real controversy was boiled down to the claim of the petitioner to have its liability quantified applying Ext.P2 judgment, where a Division Bench of this Court has directed that the petitioner's liability for interest will stand reduced to 12%. Though against that part of the directions in Ext.P2 judgment, the Board is stated to have an SLP before the Apex Court, no order has been passed by the Apex Court enabling the Board to deny the benefit of Ext.P2 judgment to the petitioner. If that be so, the benefit of Ext.P2 judgment cannot be denied for the only reason that an appeal is pending. 7. Along with Ext.P14, the Board has also attached a statement indicating the manner in which the liability has been quantified. This statement shows that for the period up to 31/10/2008, the liability has been quantified up to 01/01/2009, applying 18% & 15% interest. In the light of Ext.P2, such quantification could have been made applying only 12% interest and not 18% or 15% as done in Ext.P14. Consequently, the quantification in Ext.P14 is erroneous, and the liability of the petitioner has to be reworked as per Ext.P2 judgment. Once the WP(C) No.13090/2009 -5- liability is reworked as above, the amount, if any, paid by the petitioner, will be subject to the result of the SLP pending before the Apex Court. Thereafter, orders will have to be passed on the application made by the petitioner for No Due Certificate. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- Ext.P14 will stand set aside. The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders in the matter taking into account Ext.P2 judgment in WP(C) No.35016/2004 and applying 12% interest for the period up to 01/01/2009, and thereafter at 6% as ordered in Ext.P14. Once quantification is done as above, the respondents will be at liberty to call upon the petitioner to discharge further liability, if any, and on the petitioner making payment, necessary orders will be passed on their application for No Due Certificate. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg