IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7586 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S. PLL INDUSTRIES, CC VI/619, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MRS. LILLY LAWRENCE. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ASIF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MATTANCHERRY. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MATTANCHERRY. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO. 7586 OF 2008 C PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE SMALL SCALE INDUSTRY REGISTERED ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE CHANGE OF TARIFF ORDER NO.DB 12MTY/06-07 DATED 27.02.2008. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.355630001035 DATED 15-02-2007 MAKING A DEMAND FOR RS.1,51,888.00. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE AND THE MONTHLY BILL NO.R55630179133 DATED 15-02- 2008 MAKING A DEMAND FOR Rs.13,510.00. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED ON 03.03.08 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 2.7.2008. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 7586 OF 2008 C -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner is engaged in the process of blending and packing tea. It is stated that blending and thereafter packing tea is the final and integral part of tea processing and these processes cannot be divorced of the industrial activity of tea processing. Petitioner was being billed under LT IV industrial tariff. However, the respondent Electricity Board has, according to petitioner in violation of the Judgment of this Court in Sainalabdeen v. KSEB (2006 (1) KLT 529), taken the unilateral view that the petitioner has to be assessed as “commercial”. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Electricity Board. I follow the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sainalabdeen v. KSEB (2006 (1) KLT 529) and dispose of the Writ Petition directing that the first respondent WPC.7586/08 C 2 will place the matter before the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment. The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission will proceed to consider the matter and take a decision on the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date on which the petition is presented before it. Till such time as a decision is taken, the petitioner need pay only the charges under LT IV tariff. However, this will be provisional and subject to the final outcome of the decision of the Regulatory Commission. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge