IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37357 of 2007(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- C.K.PRAVEEN, PROPRIETOR, AJANTHA COLOUR LAB, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 576. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN 679 576. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD (HEAD QUARTERS) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIGILANCE WING, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED: R4: KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 004. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 11/01/2008 IN I.A.NO.17045/2007) BY SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.37357/2007 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELECTRICITY BOARD DTD. 13/07/2001. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DTD. 20/03/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28/03/2003. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 2/07/2003. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.10074/2004 DTD. 23/03/2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.22014/2004 DTD.11/10/2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 30/11/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BYTHE 3RD RESPONDENT (RE-ASSESSMENT) DTD. 29/12/2007. EXT.P8(A): COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (REVISED) DTD. 29/12/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.37357 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Though the issues in hand commenced by the action of the APTS, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Board, I am satisfied that the fundamental issue is as to whether merely because there is a studio and certain attended activities to a processing lab, would that establishment which would come under LT-IV tariff get reclassified to be treated as a commercial establishment for the purpose of tariff fixation. Guided promptly by Ext.P6 judgment, it can be seen that the entire activities are so intertwined that there could be no segregation for the purpose of classification. But a photo studio, including WPC37357/2007 -:2:- its reception and cash counter could be treated as an activity though such activity is not absolutely essential for a photo processing unit. I would therefore stand advised that the dispute between the parties as to the applicability of appropriate tariff ought to be decided by the Tariff Regulatory Commission. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders would stand suspended and the parties will stand regulated by the force of this judgment to the Tariff Regulatory Commission for consideration of the issue regarding the appropriate tariff under which the petitioner has to come. A final decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall be heard in relation to the issue. Until WPC37357/2007 -:3:- a decision is taken as aforesaid, enforcement of the impugned demand against the petitioner would stand suspended. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.