IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 OP.No. 10054 of 1998(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SRI.ARJUNA CARBIDES, PAZHUKKANIKALAM, VENGODI P.O., PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KANJIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, ALONG WITH OP NO. 14676 OF 1998 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OP. NO.10054/1998 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 27.3.1998 IN OP. 6178/98. P2:- COPY OF THE BILL FOR THE MONTH OF 2/98. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.3.98 FROM PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP. 32779/97 IN OP. 18320/97. P5:- COPY OF THE BILL FOR THE MONTH OF 3/98. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2.5.98 FROM PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFTS FOR RS. 37,975/- AND RS. 98,988/-. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 22.5.98. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P. Nos.10054 & 14676 OF 1998 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T In both the original petitions, the petitioners are H.T consumers. The grievance raised is also common. In W.P.(C) No.14676/1998, the 1st prayer is to quash Ext.P8 and the 2nd prayer is to direct the respondents to realise only the normal charges from the petitioners in case their consumption was within the 70% quota during 01.02.1998 to 16.07.1998. In W.P.(C) No.10054/2008, the 1st prayer is to quash Ext.P8 and the further prayer is to direct the respondents not to disconnect the service connection to the petitioner in case the petitioner limits its consumption to 87500 units per month and paying the charges for the same. 2. Heard the parties. It is submitted that the issue is covered in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.142/2002. The petitioners herein were assessed at higher rates for 30% consumption, based on the rate O.P. Nos.10054 & 14676/98 2 for the power imported from Bengal. It is contended that their consumption was within the permitted quota only. 3. Writ Appeal No.142/2002 was disposed of in the light of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.808/1998. Paragraph 3 of the judgment in W.A.No.142/2002 reads as follows: “After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the respondent dated 17/8/1998 is contrary to the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.808/1998 disposed of on 28/4/1998. In the said decision the court has stated as under: “Appellant/petitioner approached this Court for quashing Exts.P6 and P7 orders imposing higher rate of duty for the power purchased from West Bengal and supplied by the Kerala State Electricity Board. There is 30% power cut and to avoid that West Bengal power is brought to Kerala. However, for 70% of the base monthly consumption only normal rate is charged. For the balance consumption of 30%, higher amount should be paid. According to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to concessional rate of electricity under Ext.P2 order. Petitioner questions the right of the Kerala State Electricity Board in charging higher rate as mentioned in Exts.P6 and P7. The learned Single Judge found that Exts.P6 and P7 suffers from no infirmity. It is not disputed that there is shortage of power. Therefore, Exts.P1 and P2 are concerned only with the power O.P. Nos.10054 & 14676/98 3 produced in Kerala and not to the power brought from outside the State. When there is shortage of power in Kerala to meet the demands of the industrialists, Government is taking extra care and West Bengal power is brought. However, extra charge is payable only for consumption over and above the 70% of the base average. In other words, if the petitioner wants to consume 100% of his power requirements, necessarily, 30% consumption has to be regarded as power drawn from West Bengal and has to be charged accordingly. Therefore we see no infirmity in Exts.P6 and P7 and the learned Judge is right in holding that higher rate can be charged for the power purchased from West Bengal and supplied. Hence there is no merit in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed”.” 4. It is evident from the said judgment that extra charge is payable only for consumption over and above the 70% of the base average. In Writ Appeal No.142/2002, a direction was issued to consider the representation filed by the appellant in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in W.A.No.808/1998. In the light of the above, the impugned orders herein are quashed. There will be a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 and P7 representations in O.P.No.14676/1998 and Ext.P6 representation O.P. Nos.10054 & 14676/98 4 referred to in Ext.P1 judgment produced in O.P.No.10054/1998 in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners. These original petitions are allowed to the extent as above. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp