IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 3232 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PO VARANDARAPPILLY THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. PUTHUKULAM KORONADY LIFT IRRIGATION SAMITHI, VARANDARAPPILLY,THRISSUR DISTRICT REP BY ITS PRESIDENT, OMANAKUTTAN. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP BY SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, VARANDARAPPILLY. 4. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VARANDARAPPILLY. 5. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 &T5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.17884 OF 2010 & WPC. NO.17017 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3232/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE C.C. NO.188/2009 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM THRISSUR. P2:- COPY OF THE COUNTER INCC NO.188/09 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM THRISSUR. P3:- COPY OF THE IA. NO.1134/2009 CC. NO.188/09 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. NO.1134/09 IN CC. NO.188/09 DTD. 23.12.09. P5:- COPY OF THE IA. 9/2010 IN CC. NO.188/09 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. P6:- COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF THE ORDER IN IA. 9/2010 IN CC. 188/09 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM THRISSUR DTD. 27.1.2010. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 3232 OF 2010, 17017 OF 2010 AND 17884 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner in all these cases is the Panchayat, in whose name, the electricity connection has been provided in connection with the 'lift irrigation scheme', which has been implemented in the Panchayat. The issue connected with WP(C) 3232/2010 and WP(C) 17884/2010 is in respect of the 'Puthukulam Koronady Lift Irrigation Scheme' with consumer No.15694, whereas in the other case WP(C) 17017/2010, it is in respect of 'Echippara Lift Irrigation Project'. 2. The case of the petitioner Panchayat is that, pursuant to the scheme notified by the Government to promote agriculture, some concessions are being given to the farmers, especially with regard to the procurement of water required for the purpose of agriculture and it is in furtherance to the above project, that electricity connection was sought for and obtained in the name of the Panchayat for providing the requisite quantum of power supply for the lift irrigation scheme. According to the Panchayat, it was for the beneficiary concerned to satisfy the liability towards the current charges and when coercive proceedings were pursued by the Electricity Board including by way of disconnection of power supply for non satisfaction of the liability, the beneficiary, i.e., the 1st 2 WP(C) No. 3232/2010 & Conn. cases respondent in WP(C) 3232/2010 and in WP(C) 17884/2010 approached the concerned Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (CDRF in short) for immediate interference. It is stated that the CDRF passed an interim order directing the complainant therein, i.e., the beneficiary to satisfy 50% of the liability. But subsequently, the beneficiary filed a review petition even without the Panchayat in the party array and the CDRF, without hearing the Panchayat passed Ext.P6 order reviewing the earlier order and directing the Panchayat to satisfy aforesaid 50% of the liability for restoring the power supply, which forms the subject matter of challenge in WP(C) 3232/2010. 3. On conclusion of the trial, the CDRF passed final order in the complaint preferred by the beneficiary, whereby the Panchayat was permitted to file an application before the agricultural officer to provide exemption; on which event, the same was directed to be considered and disposed of giving appropriate directions with regard to the recovery proceedings being pursued against the Panchayat, which made the Panchayat to file WP(C) 17884/2010. The direction contained in Ext.P1 verdict passed by the CDRF as given in paragraph 15 is as follows: Paragraph 15: “In the result, the Exhibit P1 bill stands cancelled and 1st respondent is directed to restore the electricity connection within two days and the 3rd respondent is directed to submit exemption application to the 4th respondent within a week and the 4th respondent is directed to dispose off the application within 2 weeks and if found eligible for exemption the consumer will get exemption 3 WP(C) No. 3232/2010 & Conn. cases benefit from the very beginning and if not eligible Board is at liberty to issue fresh bill”. Pursuant to the above direction, the petitioner Panchayat filed an application before the 3rd respondent on 05.04.2010 and the direction sought for is to direct the said respondent to consider Ext.P2 application and to pass appropriate orders in terms of Ext.P1 order passed by the CDRF. 4. The 3rd respondent/agricultural officer has filed a counter affidavit stating that the application preferred by the petitioner Panchayat has already been considered and the eligibility of the petitioner Panchayat to have the power tariff concession has been sanctioned with effect from 05.04.2010, i.e., the date of the application for tariff concession and that the position has been communicated to the KSEB vide Ext.R3(a). The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit bringing the subsequent events to the notice of this Court, whereby, the matter has been reconsidered by the 3rd respondent/agricultural officer who has issued Ext.P4 communication dated 09.07.2010 addressed to the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, stating that in view of the legal opinion given by the District Government Pleader, Thrissur, the direction given by the CDRF was to be given effect to extend the benefit in respect of the prior period as well and accordingly, it was declared that the petitioner Panchayat was entitled to have the benefit of tariff concession right from the beginning with effect from April, 2005 itself. Thus, the earlier order 4 WP(C) No. 3232/2010 & Conn. cases passed in this regard limiting the benefit of exemption from 05.04.2005 as per the order dated 18.06.2010 was stated as cancelled and a certificate was also issued to the petitioner on the same date, which has also been produced as Ext.P4 along with the reply affidavit. In the above circumstances, the rights and liberties of the petitioner Panchayat and the beneficiaries concerned to have the exemption from April 2005 stands confirmed; is the submission. 5. The learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board with reference to the Section 65 of the Kerala Electricity Act, 2003, submits that even in the case of the subsidy, the Board is entitled to have the requisite amount paid 'in advance' by the Government. However, in view of the public interest contained with regard to the issue and the benefits being extended to the farmers under the particular scheme in its social and economic objectives and also taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the requisite amount will be made available and paid to the KSEB within 'two months', this Court finds it fit and proper to permit and direct the 3rd respondent to effect the payments stated as due to the Board in respect of the above connection in implementation of the 'Puthukulam Koronady Lift Irrigation Scheme', which shall be satisfied at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. With regard to the issue involved in WP(C) 17017/2010 in 5 WP(C) No. 3232/2010 & Conn. cases respect of 'Echippara Lift Irrigation Project', the stand taken by the 2nd respondent/agricultural officer in the counter affidavit filed in the case is that there is no order passed by the CDRF as in the other case, so as to give the benefit with effect from a prior date. It is also stated that no application has been preferred by the Panchayat claiming exemption with regard to the said project and that if any such petition is filed, it can be considered and disposed of, considering eligibility from the date of the application to be preferred in this regard. Though reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner Panchayat producing Ext.P3 certificate, pointing out that there need not be any application in this regard, as the concerned agricultural officer is bound to extend the benefit on implementation of scheme by the Government. Reliance is also sought to be placed in respect of 'Puthukulam Koronady Irrigation Scheme' granting the benefit of exemption with effect from April, 2005, as borne by Ext.P3. The learned Government Pleader submits that since there is no order passed by the CDRF in the instant case, there cannot be any prayer to extend the benefit prior to the date of the application. The said proposition does not appear to be palatable to this Court, for the obvious reason that Ext.P1 order passed by the CDRF in the other case has not been challenged by the department and on the other hand, the same has been considered and acted upon giving effect to the same, which led to passing of appropriate orders as borne by Ext.P3. In respect of the same/similar 6 WP(C) No. 3232/2010 & Conn. cases Scheme implemented at two different places, the only difference is that the beneficiaries are different. Since the agricultural department has considered the eligibility of one set of farmers deciding to extend the benefit with effect from prior date, i.e., April, 2005, similar benefit is liable to be extended to the other farmers by the very same Panchayat under the very similar Scheme. 7. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to treat Ext.P2 produced along with the Writ Petition (receipt of which having been disputed by the 2nd respondent) as a proper petition for exemption and to pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made as above and communicate the same to the authorities of the KSEB within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The liability to be satisfied to the Board on declaring the eligibility as above shall be cleared by the 2nd respondent within 'two months' thereafter. Subject to the above, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner Panchayat shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc