IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16040 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY REGISTRAR, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. N.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, ADVOCATE, NARAYANEEYAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO.21614 OF 2009. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.16040/2009 & 21614/2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The basic question involved in both these cases is rather having close nexus with each other, in so far as the fixation of the liability to satisfy the electricity charges in respect of the advocate office/ residential building is the point involved. 2. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.21614 of 2009, who is the owner of the building and a lawyer, having consumer No.10370 was using a room in the first floor of the said residential building as his office and has not rented out any portion of the building to anybody. The petitioner was availing the benefit of the tariff payable in respect of the domestic consumer. While so, the Board issued Ext.P1 notice dated 26.6.2007 unilaterally changing the tariff to VI B. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply, but since nothing was heard from the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Kerala Lok Ayukta by filing a compliant, who, after considering the matter issued Ext.P3 notice, giving a direction to the Board to treat the petitioner/consumer under the 'domestic tariff'. W.P(C) Nos.16040/2009 & 21614/2009 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the said case submits that there was no response for nearly 15 months. But thereafter, the 'Board' approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.16040 of 2009. On receipt of notice, the consumer has filed a detailed counter affidavit in W.P(C) No.16040 of 2009 pointing out that there was no quantification of the liability and this being the position, Ext.P1 notice in W.P(C) No.21614 of 2009 (from which point the dispute arose) was not correct or sustainable. The case of the petitioner Board in the other case is that there is absolutely no jurisdiction or competence for the 'Lok Ayukta' for having passed the impugned order under any circumstances. 4. Heard both the learned counsel at length. Having due regard to the legal position, made clear that this Court on many an occasion holding that the 'Lok Ayukta' does not have any power to pass orders like Ext.P2 in W.P(C) No.16040 of 2009 (Ext.P3 in the other case), the grounds raised with regard to the legality in this regard are not seriously opposed from the opposite side. This being the position, this Court finds that Ext.P2 impugned in W.P(C) No.16040 of 2009, can't have any valid existence in the eye of law W.P(C) Nos.16040/2009 & 21614/2009 3 and hence it is set aside. 6. With regard to the point raised in the other Writ Petition (W.P(C) No.21614 of 2009), obviously there is no quantification at all, so as to sustain the issuance of Ext.P1 necessitating the change of tariff to VI B. The consumer has placed reliance on 'Note 3' of the relevant provisions of law as projected in Ground B of the Writ Petition, which reads as follows: “Note 3 to Low Tension-I (LT-I) in the Schedule of Tariff and Terms and Conditions for Retail Supply by KSEB with effect from 1.12.2007 states as follows: “Domestic consumers shall be allowed to utilize electrical energy in some portion of their residence for their own use for purposes other than domestic as defined under LT-I when such connected load does not exceed 20% of the total connected load or 500 Watts in their premises. When connected load other than domestic use in such cases exceeds the above 20@ or 500 Watts which ever is less, such loads shall be segregated and separate service connection obtained under appropriate tariff. When this is not done, the tariff applicable to the whole service shall be at the appropriate tariff applicable to the connected load used for purpose other than domestic tariff, if such tariff is higher than the tariff for LT-I” In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no justification for having issued Ext.P7 impugned order in W.P(C) No.21614 of 2009, merely on the basis of the interim stay obtained from this Court, produced as Ext.P6 in the very same Writ W.P(C) Nos.16040/2009 & 21614/2009 4 Petition. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set aside. The respondent Board is directed to conduct an inspection afresh, with proper notice to the petitioner and to quantify the connected load and finalise the proceedings as to the actual liability of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab