IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 4989 of 2002(R) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.PALAPPILLIL RUBBER WORKS, KARUKADOM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.RAJESH THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER(TARIFF & COMMERCIAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 8889 OF 2002 IN OP 4989 OF 2002 DISMISSED 26.2.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/-T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O. MS. 4/92/PD DATED 6.2.92 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 27.3.92 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 16.3.2001 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2001 OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. No. 4989 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order whereunder the Special Officer, Revenue of the K.S.E.B. has declined concessional electricity tariff to the petitioner for a period of five years commencing from 27.1.1997 when the petitioner started commercial production. It is seen from Ext.P4 that the benefit of concessional tariff was available under the relevant Govt. order only for industries that commenced commercial production between 23.9.1991 and 31.12.1996. Even though petitioner was not eligible for concessional tariff under the notification because of commencement of commercial production beyond the date provided in the notification, Government vide Ext.P3 dated 16.3.2001 granted concessional tariff to the petitioner for seven months as a special case. Though this order was issued by the Government on 16.3.2001, petitioner has not challenged the same, but filed another representation before the Revenue Officer of the KSEB 2 for granting some relief. The Revenue Officer of the K.S.E.B. absolutely has no authority to overlook or modify the Govt. orders issued in the matter. In the circumstances, we do not find anything wrong with Ext.P4 and we therefore reject the petitioner's claim that the Revenue Officer of the KSEB should have granted relief to the petitioner. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, petitioner also has no case that petitioner commenced commercial production within the time specified in the Govt. order to entitle them for concessional tariff for the whole period. However, petitioner's case is that, but for the delay on the part of the KSEB in giving electricity connection, petitioner would have got concessional tariff. The grievance of the petitioner may be quite genuine. However, the special officer, Revenue has stated that giving connection will depend upon various factors, including availability of power. If petitioner has a case that Board deliberately delayed power connection to the petitioner leading to loss, remedy is elsewhere and not to seek concessional tariff in terms of the Govt. order, under which petitioner is admittedly not entitled. Moreover we find that the period of concessional tariff is over and 3 during this period, petitioner has obviously paid the electricity bills. Power charges go to cost of production and therefore we do not find any substantial grievance for the petitioner because the relief sought is refund of power charges already paid, which obviously would have been passed on towards cost of product. O.P. therefore fails and is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 4