IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15593 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- A.P.STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL PVT.LTD., VII/635 PHASE, NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD - 21, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER SRI.SENTHIL KUMAR K.R. (MANAGER, FINANCE). BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY SRI.T.SANJAY RESPONDENTS : -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYTHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DISTRIBUTION NORTH, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15593 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a High Tension consumer. In the industrial establishment of the petitioner, there is a melting unit and also a re-rolling unit. It would appear that the melting unit started functioning since 01/03/1995 and was allowed concession of Pre '92 tariff. In so far as the re-rolling unit is concerned, on establishing the same, the petitioner applied for additional allotment of 700 KVA. On being directed as per Ext.P2 to apply as a non power intensive unit, the petitioner made application and finally by Ext.P4, the Government ordered additional allocation of power as sought for in Ext.P2. It is stated that since then, the billing was being done on the basis of separate meters and energy charges were levied on that basis. However, according to the petitioner, since April, 2006, the meter was unified and single billing system was introduced. 2. Subsequently, in 2008, Ext.P6 tariff order was issued WP(C) No.15593/2009 -2- levying different energy charges to those allotted power prior to 17/12/1996 and subsequent to 17/12/1996. Thereafter, Ext.P7 invoice was issued demanding additional payment. When this demand was made, the petitioner raised their objections by filing Ext.P8 before the 4th respondent. It is contended that the higher rate as per Ext.P6 can, at best, be made applicable only in respect of energy consumed at the re-rolling unit only. Further, according to the petitioner, rate prescribed can not be demanded from April, 2006, but can only be prospective. The issue is pending consideration of the 4th respondent. The petitioner also by Ext.P9, sought bifurcation of the bills as it prevailed before April, 2006 and orders on that application also have not been passed. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has raised their objections against Exts.P7 by filing Ext.P8, which is pending consideration of the 4th respondent, at this stage, the grievances of WP(C) No.15593/2009 -3- the petitioner can be remedied by directing consideration of Ext.P8. Similarly, Ext.P9 also needs to be considered. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 & P9 with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, on the petitioner paying 1/3rd of the amount due under Ext.P7 within two weeks from today, the power supply shall not be disconnected. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg