IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 10353 of 2001(G) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- GRAMOC PAPER AND BOARD LTD., PUTHUPADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR M.C. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YRS, S/O. JOSEPH CHACKO. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, TARIFF AND COMMERCIAL KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 16553/2001 IN OP NO. 10353/2001 G. DISMISSED 01/02/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D& RE-III/PA/94-95/53 DT. 6/12/94. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTN. SOUTH) NO. AE. III/PA/96-97/234 DT. 26/2/97. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTIN. SOUTH), NO. AE. III/PA/2/98-99/147 DT. 24/09/98. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FINANCIAL ADVISER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER DT. 1/7/95. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 25/3/99 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R3. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (C&T) DT. 17/1/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P. No. 10353 of 2001-G. ========================= Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a High Tension consumer of electricity for industrial purposes which is engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper boards. As per Ext.P1 power allocation was sanctioned to the extent of 700 KVA under the OYEC scheme. Further formalities to be performed were complied with by the petitioner. But it appears that there was some delay in making ready the feeder line because of which petitioner made a request for a connection from the existing feeder for a load of 400 KVA. Accordingly on 27.3.1995 petitioner executed a High Tension agreement for 400 KVA with the Electricity Board. Thereafter the factory was energized from an existing feeder on 29.3.1995. Later on petitioner, as per its requirements moved for increase in the contract demand to 650 KVA; later to allot 900 KVA. By Ext.P2 O.P. No. 10353 of 2001-G. 2 same was allowed. By Ext.P3 it was enhanced to 1000 KVA. But later on Board demanded penal charges for the contract demand exceeding 400 KVA. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was allotted 700 KVA originally and in view of the orders passed by the Electricity Board from time to time and as the unit was entitled for certain concession, the petitioner sought various reliefs by way of Ext.P5 representation. Main relief sought there is as regards refund of the excess MD Charges collected during different periods. As it was rejected by Ext.P6, this Original Petition has been filed. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.Board brought to my notice the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.2245/2006 where the entitlement of the petitioner for the grant of Pre-92 tariff was considered and it was held that the petitioner will be entitled to get the benefit of Pre-92 tariff rates in respect of an additional load of 700 KVA till 29.3.2000 and the extended date which had been granted by separate proceedings. Consequential directions have also issued by the O.P. No. 10353 of 2001-G. 3 Division Bench as per the above judgment. Since the same issue arises in this case also, the direction issued by the Division Bench will govern the matter, submitted the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed that the decision of the Bench will cover the issue here. Hence no further directions are called for in this case. The Judgment in WA.No.2245/2006 will govern the issue raised herein and the Board is hereby directed to modify Ext.P6 in terms of the Judgment in WA.No.2245/2006. Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-