IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 24976 of 1998(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SMT.G.SARADAMMA, PROPRIETRIX, PITMAN'S COMMERCIAL school, MUKKADA, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM. (DIED) * * S.KRISHNAMMA, PRINCIPAL & MANAGER, PITMAN'S COMMERCIAL SCHOOL, JUKKADA, KUNDARA KOLLAM. IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESNTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DT. 5.12.05 IN IA. 17616/2005. BY ADV. SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI SRI.B.VINOD. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI-POWER THEFT SQUAD (HQ), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUNDARA. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUNDARA. 5. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.VENUNAIR,SC K.S.E.B. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON 12/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.24976/1998 ORDER ON CMP. NO.43874/1998 IN OP. NO.24976/1998 DISMISSED 12.03.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21.12.72 OF DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GRANTING RECOGNITION TO PITMAN'S COMMERCIAL SCHOOL,KUNDARA. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND DT. 14.11.79 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER I FAVOUR OF THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, KUNDARA. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD FOR THE YEAR 1988-89 ISSUED BY THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION , KSEB, KUNDARA TO THE PETITIONER (CONSUMER 83). EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LOW TENSION TARIFF REVISION ORDER 8.7.1982. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 24.10.83 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 23.2.84 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT. 24.6.85 FILED BY THE PRINCIPAL BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE , KSEB, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.11.85 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, KSEB, KOTTARAKKARA TO THE PRINCIPAL. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT INVOICE DT. 21.2.98 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KSEB, KUNDARA TO THE PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OF INSPECTION OF APTS. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 23.2.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 25.2.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTE PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 24.3.98 WITH REGARD TO CONNECTED LOAD AT THE PETITIONER'S INSTITUTION. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN DESHABIMANI DAILY DT. 27.3.98. OP. NO.24976/1998 EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 27.1.92 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.15:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.12122/98 DT. 30.6.98 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURKANNUR OF KERALA DIRECTING 2ND RESPONDENT TO DISPOSE OF THE PETITIONER MATTER. EXT.P16:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 10.9.98 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P17:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.12.98 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P18:- COPY OF THE INVOICE DT. 19.11.98. EXT.P19:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 28.12. 98. EXT.P20:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P21:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 16.12.85. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. T JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= OP.No.24976 of 1998-W. ======================= Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext.P9 the bill issued by the respondents and the order passed in appeal Ext.P17. The petitioner is running an educational institution under the name and style 'Pitman's Commercial School' which is recognised by the Director of Technical Education as per Ext.P1. The coaching is done in Typewriting and Shorthand (English and Malayalam), Book-keeping and Accountancy, etc. The petitioner had installed a one-ton capacity Air-conditioner in a room where a copying machine is installed. As far as the petitioner is concerned, by Ext.P8 the Executive Engineer fixed the tariff at LT-VI(a) the one applicable to recognised educational institutions and thereafter the bills were being issued accordingly. The dispute arose when Ext.P9 OP.No.24976 of 1998-W. -: 2 :- was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner moved the appropriate authority under Ext.P10 and an appeal was also failed as per Ext.P11. Ext.P12 will show that a connected load is 4 kilo watts even though the petitioner took up the position that the connected load was originally 2 kilo watts that was increased based on the basic direction issued by the Board. When delay occurred she approached this Court by filing OP.No.12122/1998 which was disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment directing the authorities to dispose of the matter. Thereafter Ext.P17 order has been passed. Going by the order, the appellate authority has now arrived at the total connected load as 4 kilo watts for computing of the fixed charges. The appellate authority also revised the tariff rate as applicable to commercial consumers ie. LT VIIA. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the findings rendered in Ext.P17 is concerned, there are various infirmities therein. It is submitted that when the Air Conditioner was installed way back in 1979 permission was OP.No.24976 of 1998-W. -: 3 :- granted by the Executive Engineer and therefore it cannot be said that the additional load is an unauthorised one. It is also submitted that the petitioner had specifically pleaded for set off in para.9 of Ext.P11 based on the fact that during the period 1992 provisional card tariff was subjected to the final adjustment based on actual consumption. It is also pointed out that the findings that the connected load exceeded to the permitted load is not correct in the sense that she was permitted to increase it from 2 kilo watts to 4 kilo watts. 4. As far as the change of tariff is concerned, two things are relevant. The petitioner's institution is an educational institution and accordingly the tariff as applicable is LT-VI(a) was implemented as per Ext.P8. That was never an issue before the appellate authority and the appellate authority was only concerned with the validity or veracity of Ext.P9 that was issued. Therefore, in an appeal filed by the petitioner that issue ought not have been adjudicated at all. Apart from that a reading of Ext.P9 show that OP.No.24976 of 1998-W. -: 4 :- the only basis of the said change of tariff is the installation of a photocopying machine by the petitioner. It is beyond comprehension as to how the said circumstance can be counted to have a change of classification from 'educational to commercial'. 5. The Standing Counsel of the Board with reference to the averments in the counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner is doing job works. Apart from such a bald averment in the counter affidavit no materials have been placed before this Court and even in Ext.P17 apart from referring to the contents of a letter from the Executive Engineer wherein he asked for conversion of the tariff no other details are stated therein. At any rate, the appellate authority was not concerned with that issue. Therefore the change of tariff ordered in Ext.P17 cannot be sustained. 6. Regarding the refund sought for in Ext.P17, that issue was not considered on merits. If the petitioner is really entitled for the refund that is a matter which the 3rd respondent has to consider in accordance with the relevant Board orders. Therefore the order OP.No.24976 of 1998-W. -: 5 :- Ext.P17 is set aside as far as it relates to the change of tariff from educational to commercial. In all other respects the order will stand confirmed. The direction to apply the higher rate cannot therefore be sustained and the competent authority among the respondents is directed to issue a revised bill in accordance with the findings rendered above. 7. The proceedings Ext.P8 shows that the petitioner had been granted tariff applicable to an educational institution. If at all a change is required that can be done only on the basis of supporting materials to show that the petitioner is running a commercial institution. If at all that can be done, the Executive Engineer will have to issue notice to the petitioner in that regard and without indicating the grounds the same cannot be changed at all. Therefore, the Executive Engineer will be at liberty to have a re-look but only with proper and supportive materials alone and if at all a change is proposed the petitioner will be issued appropriate notice in this matter. The Executive Engineer will also consider the OP.No.24976 of 1998-W. -: 6 :- request of the petitioner for refund as mentioned in para.9 of Ext.P11. With the above direction this Original Petition is disposed of. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-