IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 35615 of 2002(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MET-ROLLA STEELS LTD., MELTING DIVISION UNIT, PAIPARA, PAZHAKKAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 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. CHIEF ENGINEER (TARIFF & COMMERCIAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 35615 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a SSI unit. By virtue of Ext. P3 Government Order, SSI units were entitled to pre-1992 concessional tariff. The same was claimed and allowed to the petitioner. In 1996-97, there was power cut in excess of 50%. By Ext. P6 Government Order, the Government granted exemption of the period of supply of power at pre-92 tariff to eligible industrial units covered by Ext. P3, which suffered power cut of 50% or more for such period when power cut of 50% or more was in force. Pursuant thereto, 167 days of extension of benefit of pre-1992 concessional tariff was extended to the petitioner. But, according to the petitioner, the petitioner was actually entitled to extension by 357 days, which was claimed and disallowed. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same. While that was pending, the petitioner was issued with a bill for the month of September, 1992 under the ruling tariff instead of the concessional tariff, which, according to the petitioner, was not correct since September, 1992 also fell within the extended period available under Ext. P6 Government Order. The petitioner filed an appeal against that bill. By Ext. P14 judgment, the appeal was directed to be disposed of. Subsequently, Ext. P15 bill was issued for the month of October, 2002 also. According to the petitioner, October, 2002 also would fall within the 357 days of extension which was denied to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal against that bill also. It is under the said circumstances the petitioner has filed this original petition in respect of the bill for October, 2002. 2. While the original petition was pending, the appeal of the petitioner seeking extension by 357 days was considered and rejected. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 22934/2003, which was dismissed by a learned Judge. The petitioner took up the matter in O.P.. No. 35615/2002. -: 2 :- appeal as W.A.No.1377/2003, in which the Division Bench directed the Electricity Board to re-consider the question whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-1993 tariff for 357 days. Pursuant thereto, orders were passed again rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Against that, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 23403/2007, which is pending. According to the petitioner, the said writ petition would cover the bill for the month of October, 2002 also. Therefore, the petitioner submits that this original petition may be closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to canvass for the relief prayed herein in the said writ petition, viz, W.P(C) No. 23403/2007. Permission is granted and the original petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.