IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 36284 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.VISHNUBHAKTHAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, NEW RAJASTHAN MARBLES, CHIRAYANKEEZHU, KUNTHALOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 304. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHIRAYANKEEZHU 695 304, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE (URBAN), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POWER HOUSE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-36. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.36284/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2 : COPY OF THE MAHAZAR REPORT DATED 04/10/2007. P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/10/2007 ISSUED BY R1. P4 : COPY OF the APPEAL PETITION DATED 09/10/2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR ELECTRICITY. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2007 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 25/11/2007. P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/11/2007 NO.GB/CHL/07-08 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.36284 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of September, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 & P5. 2. The petitioner submits that he is conducting a business establishment by name New Rajasthan Marbles at Chirayinkeezhu, in respect of which, the petitioner has obtained consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board as per Ext.P1. 3. According to the petitioner, their activity includes brining large marble and granite slabs, which are cut into various smaller sizes using power, depending upon the requirement of their customers. It is stated that in order to meet the energy requirement, they have availed of supply of electrical energy, with consumer Nos.10924 & 11827. According to the petitioner, consumer No.10924 is an industrial connection, while consumer No.11827 is a commercial connection. 4. It is stated that their premises were inspected by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board and Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared. WP(C) No.36284/2007 -2- It is stated in the mahazar that the activity of the petitioner is purely commercial, and that availing of energy as an industrial consumer, the petitioner was using the supply for commercial purposes, which attracts higher tariff. On this basis, by Ext.P3, demand was raised on the petitioner, and the petitioner was also directed to get consumer No.10924 shifted from LT IV to LT VII A. Against Ext.P3, they filed Ext.P4 appeal, which was also rejected by Ext.P5. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the activity of the petitioner is cutting of marble and granite slabs into smaller pieces, depending upon the requirement of their customers. It is stated that this activity is an industrial activity, and which has been duly certified by the Pollution Control Board as per Ext.P1. It is stated that in such situation, the allegation that availing of supply as an industrial consumer, the same was being used for commercial purposes, is incorrect. For that reason, it is contended that Ext.P3 demand and Ext.P5 order rejecting Ext.P4 appeal are illegal, and those are liable to be set aside. WP(C) No.36284/2007 -3- 6. The industrial activity for which supply was availed of by the petitioner necessarily contemplates manufacturing. Manufacturing would mean that the product which emerges out of the industrial activity should be one which is distinct and different from what is used as the raw material. In this case, the activity of the petitioner is cutting of large marble and granite slabs into smaller pieces. Even after the aforesaid process, the commodity remains the same. Since there is no conversion of the granite or marble, as the case may be, it cannot be said that there is any manufacturing activity in order to avail of supply of electrical energy for an industrial purpose. As a necessary consequence, the only conclusion that is possible is that the activity of the petitioner is a commercial activity, for which supply should have been availed of under LT VII A tariff. 7. If so, the demand made in Ext.P3 or Ext.P5 order cannot be said to be faulty. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg