IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 37763 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. H.BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, DHIRUBAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE CITY NAVI MUMBAI AND KERALA CIRCLE OFFICE AT A&P ARCADE SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-16, REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY S.MEENAKSHINATRHAN, CIRCLE HEAD SHARED SERVICES. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,. 2. MEMBER(DISTRIBUTION), KSEB, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, 30, PARAMESWARA BHAVAN, BELHEAVEN GARDENS, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALGHAT, PALGHAT. BY ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB FOR R1, 2, 4 SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH,SC,KSER COMMN. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 37763 OF 2008 U ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Prayers in the writ petition are as follows. (i) Call for the records connected with the case; (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside Ext.P1(a), P1(b), P1(c), P1(d), P1(e), P1(f), P1 (g), P1(h) and P1(i); (iii) Direct the 3rd respondent to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with the provisions contained in Electricity Supply Act, 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder; (iv) Direct the Appellate authority, 4th respondent, to dispose of Ext.P4 appeal by treating the rectifiers installed in the premises as not part of the connected load; (v) Declare that the rectifier installed in premises of electronic equipments for conversion of alternating current into direct current is not part of power consuming connected load. 2. I heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner WPC.37763/08 : 2 : Sri.P.Santhalingam, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of both the Electricity Board and the Regulatory Commission. 3. The dispute in this writ petition arises out of the bills issued by the Board imposing penalty on the petitioner on the score that excess connected load was discovered on inspection conducted. The excess connected load, according to the petitioner, consists of rectifiers. According to the petitioner, rectifiers cannot be treated as part of the connected load as it does the conversion of Direct Current to Alternate Current. Therefore, it does not consume power. According to the petitioner, it is not open to the Board to treat rectifiers as part of the connected load and the body expressed with the said task is the Commission. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner under section 127 of the Electricity Act and paid 50% also. This is disputed by the learned standing counsel for the Board. He, on instructions, submits that no appeals were filed within the time in proper form. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner had participated in the WPC.37763/08 : 3 : public hearing conducted on 16.2.2009 and submitted Ext.P9. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission would point out that there is a public hearing on 27.3.2009 and it is open to the petitioner also to participate in that public hearing. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would point out that after the filing of the writ petition, the Board placed the matter as to whether rectifiers are to be treated as part of the connected load before the Commission. It is undisputed that the Commission has taken the view that it is to be treated as part of the connected load. If that be so, I do not see how the petitioner can pursue this writ petition. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. But, I make it clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the matter, if so agreed and advised, before the appropriate forum against the decision of the Commission. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE