IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2024 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) No.19653/2008 Dated 06/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ----------------- 1. MANAGER, DARSANA CMI INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, CARMEL HILLS, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 011. 2. PRINCIPAL, CHRISTU JYOTHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAJAKAD, IDUKKI-685 566. 3. MANAGER, MONTFORT SCHOOL, CHINNAKANAL P.O., IDUKKI-685 618. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 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., PUTHUPPALLY. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B., RAJAKUMARY. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B., CHITHIRAPURAM. 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- W.A.No. 2024 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal is filed against the common judgment, dated 6.4.2009, in W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2008. The matter pertains to classification of educational institutions under LT VII A commercial tariff. This Court has disposed of the connected cases, as per common judgment, dated 17.8.2009, in W.A.No.1064 of 2009 and connected cases, in the following lines. “x x x x 22. For the various reasons stated as above, we declare that inclusion of Self Financing Educational Institutions under LT VII(A) as a commercial consumer is bad in law in so far as such differentiation is not for any of the grounds specified under Section 62(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we allow all the writ appeals and the writ petitions. They will be treated like falling WA.No.2024 of 2009 2 under Tariff VI until any new notification is issued in accordance with law.” In the light of the above judgment, extending the benefit of the judgment in W.A.No.1064 of 2009 and connected cases to the appellants herein, who are similarly placed, this writ appeal is disposed of. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.