IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35757 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, SRI SAI VIDYA BHAVAN, P.O.P.VEMBALLUR, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B, MATHILAKAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1,2 SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35757 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an educational institution. They have an electricity connection to the institution. Their grievance in this writ petition is that although they are liable to pay electricity charges only under tariff LT VIA, they are being charged under tariff LT VIIA. According to them, the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Bro. Joseph Antony v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2009(3) KLT 1022. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board also. He could not dispute that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the above said decision. But, the standing counsel pointed out that that decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court in an SLP filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon to give the petitioner the same relief. A Division Bench of this Court has, in Abdul Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another, [2009 (4) KHC 283 (Division Bench)] held that even when a decision of a Division Bench of this Court is stayed by the Supreme Court, the law declared by the Division Bench in that decision is binding on the Single Judges of this Court and the Single Judges are bound to follow the ratio of that decision in identical cases. That being so, notwithstanding the fact that the abovesaid decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court, I am bound to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the ratio of that decision. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned bills are W.P.C. No. 35757/09 -: 2 :- quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges only under LT VIA tariff. Any excess amount paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted against the future bills of the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.