IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16568 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ISLAMIC MISSION TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN .M. ABDUL AHAD, SHANTAPURAM P.O., PATTIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUTH BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KERALA STAE ELECTRICITY BOARD CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER(COMMERCIAL & TARIFF) VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC FOR R5 SMT. SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SC FOR R1 SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.16568 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner's grievance is against the levy of LT-VI-A tariff in respect of the 7 out of the 13 consumer numbers to which energy is supplied in the petitioner's premises. The establishment in question is an educational institution, though according to the petitioner, it imparts only spiritual education. Going by the tariff order, educational institutions are liable to be classified under LT-VII-A tariff and it is on that basis levy has been made. This court in the judgment in St.Ani V. KSEB (2009(2) KHC 554 has already upheld the levy of LT-VII-A tariff on educational institutions. In my view, the fact that the petitioner is imparting spiritual education may not have any significance, while their liability of payment of electricity tariff is considered. WP(c).No.16568/09 2 So long as it is an educational institution, it has to pay tariff in terms of the provisions contained in the tariff order. I do not see any error warranting interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.16568/09 3