IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35402 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRINCIPAL, ST.JOSEPH'S PUBLIC SCHOOL, THOTTUVA, KOOVAPADY P.O., PIN-683 544, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B., KOOVAPADY. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 35402 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an educational institution. They have been directed by the respondents to pay electricity charges under LT VII A Tariff. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges only under LT VIA Tariff. The petitioner submits that the position of law in that respect has been declared in favour of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 Bench in that decision is binding on the Single Judges of this Court and 2 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 this writ petition in terms of the ratio of that decision. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The impugned bills are quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges only under LT VIA Tariff. Any excess amounts paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted against the future bills of the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge