IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1158 of 2008() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4963/2008 Dated 12/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: IST RESPONDENT ------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION MR. C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM 695 010, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ----------------------- 1. KANAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY PVT. LTD., KDMP HOUSE, MUNNAR - 685612, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, P.M.SRIKRISHNAN. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE PO, TRIVANDRUM 695 004, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM , PATTOM PALACE PO., TRIVANDRUM 695 004, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA - R1 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN - R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1158 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Ext. P6 was issued by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of authority under section 62 (1) (a), Clause (d) of the first proviso under section 62 (1) (a) and section 86 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. It was issued by the Commission to ensure the object sought to be achieved by section 64 (2). A clear distinction is made between the licensees with consumption of more than 50% of the total purchase from the KSEB as a category and licensees with self- consumption less than 50%. In Ext.P6, Sl. No.4 is regarding licensees with consumption of more than 50% of the total purchase from KSEB. The above tariff was fixed after getting suggestions from the public as required under section 64 (3). Petitioner, being a distributing licensee, who is also a consumer stated to be with self consumption less than 50%, which fact is admitted by KSEB, did not place any suggestion or objection to Ext.P6 because, that notification did not touch any licensee with self consumption less W.A.No.1158/2008 2 than 50%. But, when Ext.P4 tariff order was issued, petitioner was also affected. Ext.P6 was issued for calling objections from the consumers. Since no objections were called for from licensees who are consuming less than 50% of KSEB power, notification issued in pursuance of Ext.P4 cannot be affected such consumers. Therefore, the learned Judge set aside Ext.P4 and directed the Commission to proceed further with notice as provided under section 64 (3) of the Act. Therefore, appellant's power was not taken away by the learned single Judge. Appellant was also directed to decide the matter after calling for objections as provided under the Statute. 2. Main contention raised is that there is a tribunal constituted for filing an appeal. Petitioner did not approach the tribunal. But, Ext. P4 was passed violating the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Secondly, it was contended that notice was given to the petitioner, but, in the public hearing, it was specifically stated that it will not affect the licensees like the petitioner. The learned Judge correctly found that the procedure adopted was not correct and, therefore, after quashing Ext.P4 also allowed the appellant to proceed according to law. Ext.P4 is quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner. Since the learned single Judge only directed the appellant to proceed with the matter W.A.No.1158/2008 3 according to law, we are of the opinion the appeal need not be entertained. Appellant can pass fresh order in compliance with the procedure. We are of the view that no grounds are made out for interference in the order in an intra-court appeal as Ext.P4 order was passed as against the petitioner without affording natural justice. Hence, appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa W.A.No.1158/2008 4 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1158 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:5th June, 2008