IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5927 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PALMA DAIRY , 1/386, ATTAYAMPATHY PO KERRAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AIYSHA , W/O. K.S.IBRAHIM, AGED 56 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, KPFC BHAVAN, C.V.RAMANPILLAI ROAD VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, REGIONAL UNIT, K.S.E.B , PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION K.S.E.B, VELANTHAVALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH,SC,KSER COMMN. FOR R2 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1, R3 & R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 5927 OF 2009 I -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner calls in question Exts.P3, P4, P6 and P8. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to keep in abeyance the implementation of the tariff order with effect from 01.12.2007 in the case of the petitioner under LT VII A commercial category and to charge the petitioner only under LT IV industrial tariff. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is running a Dairy. There was an inspection on 16.02.2008 and Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared indicating that the meter was not working. Thereafter, another inspection was conducted on 05.09.08 and pursuant to the same, Ext.P3 short assessment bill was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay from 17.11.2007 the charges on the basis that the petitioner having utilised more than twenty per cent of the connected load for chilling purpose, the petitioner is liable to be billed at commercial rate. Admittedly, this bill is raised on the basis of WPC.5927/09 I 2 the provisions of the Tariff Order which came into force from 01.12.2007. Petitioner challenges the same. Petitioner also calls in question Exts.P6 to P8. Ext.P6 is the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ext.P7 is a monthly bill and Ext.P8 is the arrear bill and the total amount is fixed at Rs.5,58,283/=. 2. I heard Shri Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board and also the Commission. Ext.P6 is the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal forum. 3. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board that as far as the tariff order is concerned, the petitioner has a statutory right of appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As far as the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is concerned, it is appealable to the Electricity Ombudsman. Essentially, the problem stems from the terms of the tariff order. One of the reasons why, the learned counsel would submit that, the petitioner has approached the writ court is that for preferring of a statutory appeal, huge fees WPC.5927/09 I 3 of Rs.1 Lakh has to be paid. It is brought to my notice by the learned standing counsel for the Commission and also the Board that under Regulation 55(3) of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee and Record of Proceedings) Rules 2007, it is open to the Tribunal to advance the cause of justice and in suitable cases waive the payment of the fee or a portion thereof, taking into consideration the economic condition or indigent circumstances of the petitioner or appellant or applicant or such other reason, as the case may be. In the light of this, the argument that the petitioner will have to pay Rs.1 Lakh may not be correct. The Statute provides for a further appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. Being an appellate forum, the petitioner would have access to a larger jurisdiction to ventilate its grievances, unlike the limited jurisdiction which is vested in proceedings for judicial review under Article 226. Therefore, I feel that the petitioner is to be relegated to the pursuit of the statutory remedy. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of without WPC.5927/09 I 4 prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the appellate forum. On condition that the petitioner remits thirty per cent of the amount within a period of ten days from today, the electricity supply will not be disconnected to the petitioner establishment for a period of three weeks from today. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge