IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 12782 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, REGIONAL CENTRE, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, ANGAMALY 683 572,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DR. SR.MARY LUCITA BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDTHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, ANGAMALY. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT POWER DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA FOR R.4 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM ADV.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, A/W. W.P.(C).No. 13014/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 12782/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.16.2.O8. P2. COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.15.3.08. P3. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.12782 & 13014 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are educational institutions. They have been directed by the respondents to pay electricity charges under LT VIIA Tariff. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are liable to pay electricity charges only under LT VIA Tariff. The petitioners submit that the position of law in that respect has been declared in favour of the petitioners in the decision of Bro. Joseph Antony v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2009(3) KLT 1022]. 2. I have heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents also. The standing counsel could not dispute the fact that the issue involved is covered in favour of the petitioners in the above said decision. But the standing counsel pointed out that that decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court in an SLP filed by the KSEB and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon to give the petitioners the same relief. 3. A Division Bench of this Court has, in Abdul Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another [2009 (4) KHC 283 (DB)] held that even when a decision of a Division Bench of this Court is stayed by the Supreme Court, the law declared by the Division w.p.c.12782/08 & cc 2 Bench in that decision is binding on the Single Judges of this Court and the Single Judges are bound to follow the ratio of that decision in identical cases. That being so, notwithstanding the fact that the above said decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court, I am bound to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the ratio of that decision. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned bills are quashed. It is declared that the petitioners are liable to pay electricity charges only under LT VIA Tariff. Any excess amount paid by the petitioners shall be adjusted against the future bills of the petitioners. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge