IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 33943 of 2001(N) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOY JOSEPH, PARTNER, P.J. ICE PLANT, PUTHENTHURUTHU, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR(QUILON) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, \ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (COMM. & TARIFF), KERALA STATE ELELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KOLLAM. 6. THE ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. R3 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR K.S.E.B. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 55443 OF 2001 IN OP 33943 OF 2001 DISMISSED 27.6.2008 SD/-CN.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS.) NO. 4/92 DATED 6.2.1992 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.1996 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 8.7.1999 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SIXTH RESPONDENT DATED 24.10.2001 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.10.2001 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2001 6TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2787/99 (PLG. CO.M. 3848/99) DATED 16.12.99 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 33943 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge is against revised electricity bills raised vide Exts. P4 and P5 for the period after the petitioner availed additional connected load, that is from July, 1999 to August, 2001. While the case of the petitioner is that concessional tariff granted in the bills originally raised is correct and additional bills are unauthorised, standing counsel for KSEB submitted that concessional tariff was available to the petitioner till 31.12.1996. However, by mistake concessional tariff was granted even after expiry of the period and after enhancement of the connected load. Board has a further case that there is no segragation of load between lighting and for factory purposes. In any case, I do not think there is any need for this Court to consider the correctness of revised electricity bills raised because statutory appeal is provided against bills before the higher authority. O.P. is therefore closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to file appeal against the revised bills before the appellate authority, whether it be the Exe. 2 Engineer or Dy. Chief Engineer. Since O.P. was pending for long before this Court, petitioner is given two weeks' time from today to file appeal, and if appeal is filed within the said time, same shall not be rejected on account of delay. Since prima facie the Board has established that revised bills are issued only to correct the original bills wherein petitioner was wrongly given concessional tariff even after expiry of eligible period, I direct the petitioner to make payment of 50% of the amount due under the revised bills as a condition for stay and for filing appeal as above. If petitioner pays 50% of the amount due and files appeal before the appellate authority as above, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of filing of the appeal. Recovery of the balance will remain stayed for three months from today, within which time the appellate authority should dispose of the appeal. Issue photocopy today itself. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3