IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12589 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TATA TELE SERVICE LTD,HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TOWER 1, 10TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARATI,124 CANNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI AND LOCAL OFFICE AT SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM,COCHIN REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.BOBBY JOSEPH BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB,ELECTRICAL SECTION,RAMAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,(APPELLATE AUTHORITY)ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,KSEB,PALAI. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12593 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.12589 & 12593 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these two writ petitions, challenge is against the demands raised by the KSE Board and the orders confirming the same in appeals. 2. The petitioner is a company licensed by the Government of India for providing mobile cellular telephone services in Kerala. The petitioner is availing of supply of electrical energy from the KSE Board. They were issued Ext.P1 bills, demanding additional payment on the ground that the petitioner is sharing its facility with other service providers. Objection raised was over ruled, and the bills were confirmed. Appeals filed were also rejected. 3. In WP(C) No.12589/2009, Ext.P1 bill has been confirmed by Ext.P4 order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, rejecting the appeal. In so far as WP(C) No.12593/2009 is concerned, Ext.P1 bill has been confirmed in Ext.P5 appellate order of the Deputy Chief Engineer. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to me an WP(C) Nos.12589 & 12593/2009 -2- order bearing No.B.O.(FM)(Genl) No.1396/2009 (DPC1/C-GI-11/08) dated 27/05/2009, which was issued in response to a request made by the Chief Engineer (Distribution North) for clarifying whether separate connections should be insisted for individual service providers availing of infrastructure facilities from a licensed infrastructure provider through a common tower. In that Board order, it is clarified that sharing of power supply is permissible as provided in the order. It is stated that on account of the clarification thus issued, Exts.P4 & Ext.P5 appellate orders referred to above are liable to be re-considered. 4. Having regard to the fact that the Board order dated 27/05/2009 referred to above is issued subsequent to Exts.P4 & P5 referred to above, and as the order is issued in clarification of the position, I am of the view that the appeals filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 bills, resulting in the aforesaid appellate orders, needs to be re-considered. In order to enable the Deputy Chief Engineer, the appellate authority, to reconsider the appeals as above, Ext.P4 in WP(C) No.12589/2009 and Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.12593/2009 will stand set aside. The Deputy Chief Engineer, WP(C) Nos.12589 & 12593/2009 -3- the appellate authority, is directed to reconsider the appeals, which led to the aforesaid orders, in the light of the Board order dated 27/05/2009, with notice to the petitioner, and pass orders. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg