IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1229 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MANJERY. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KEEZHUPARAMBA. 4. REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER, KSEB, MANJERI. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.20739/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.1229 & 20739 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The dispute in this batch of writ petitions is whether while computing the total connected load in the Telephone Exchanges of the BSNL, the load of Switched Mode Power Supply (SMPS) units including which are stand by, are liable to be reckoned. 2. It is stated that this issue was in dispute between the parties since long, and that while considering Writ Appeal No.1912/2004, a Division Bench of this Court directed that to resolve this issue, a Committee should be constituted and that the matter should be amicably sorted out. It is stated that in pursuance thereof, a committee was constituted and the Board had agreed to consider the cases of the BSNL as a special case. Accordingly, discussions were held and finally, the committee in its meeting held on 08/03/2006, resolved that while computing the total connected load, load of stand by equipments will be excluded provided such equipments are separated from the main equipments by a change over switch, in such a way that either the main equipments or the WP(C) Nos.1229 & 20739/2009 -2- stand by equipments only can function at a time. 3. The BSNL contends that with the advancement of technology, the systems now installed are hot stand by system and load sharing system of SMPS. It is stated that the hot stand by system functions in such a manner that an automatic switch over system is installed in the system itself and change over from one module to another is automatic without any human intervention. It is stated that the second type of SMPS is the load sharing system, in which any number of module can be connected and the load will be shared equally by the modules. It is stated that these are the systems presently installed by the BSNL and that the decision of the Committee on 08/03/2006 was without taking note of the aforesaid SMPS systems that are presently installed by the BSNL. 4. Thus the BSNL contends that the nature of the SMPS presently installed were not taken into account, while the committee took its decision on 08/03/2006. Board, on the other hand, contends that the connected load, due to installation of the aforesaid SMPS, is liable to be reckoned. On account of the aforesaid dispute, bills were raised by the Board and the BSNL has WP(C) Nos.1229 & 20739/2009 -3- called in question the same in these writ petitions. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board points out a judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.37763/2008, where according to the learned counsel, this Court has already upheld their contention that the SMPS of the type mentioned above is liable to be reckoned while fixing the connected load. He also refers me to the definition of ‘connected load’ as provided in the Terms and Conditions of Supply and the Supply Code. 6. In my view, this dispute is one arising out of the issue dealt with in the judgment in W.A.No.1912/2004 and is a matter which ought to have been resolved by the parties by constituting a Committee as directed in the judgment in the writ appeal referred to above, especially since this is a technical issue and the technical experts of both the petitioner and the 1st respondent, will be more competent to deal with such issues. Having due regard to the judgment referred to above and the nature of the controversy, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- That the dispute as to whether the SMPS units of the petitioner BSNL, is liable to be taken into account while computing the WP(C) Nos.1229 & 20739/2009 -4- connected load in their exchanges, will be decided by the Committee, constituted by the Board as directed in the judgment in W.A.No.1912/2004. Based on the decision so taken, further proceedings will be issued by the Board, if it is so warranted. It is directed that until a decision is taken as above, further proceedings for realisation of the amount claimed on this account shall be kept in abeyance. It is clarified that the normal bill amount claimed in Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.20739/2009 shall be paid by the petitioner and that the said liability will be outside the issue to be considered by the Committee. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg