IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28505 of 2008(R) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. TOLINS TYRES (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.C. ROAD, MATTOOR, KALADY 683 574. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 28505 OF 2008 R -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the fixation of the quota which the petitioner can utilise by paying normal rates under Ext.P3 order of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Ext.P4 is an order dated 24.7.2008 issued by the respondent Electricity Board apparently in the light of Ext.P3 order. Ext.P4 order, inter alia, contemplates eschewing the consumption during the months where it is nil consumption and the arriving at of the average consumption and further arriving at the base average consumption by eliminating the consumption of those months where the consumption was more or less by thirty per cent from the average monthly consumption. 2. I heard Shri Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri C.K. Karunakaran, learned senior standing counsel appearing on WPC.28505/08 R 2 behalf of the respondent Electricity Board. Shri Kurian George kannanthanam would contend that the facts of this case attract paragraph 6 of Ext.P3 order of the Commission which is extracted below: “6. For consumers who do not have adequate consumption during the period mentioned above, the modality for fixing the quota shall be furnished immediately by the Board for approval”. It is pointed by the senior counsel that the petitioner is running a unit which was manufacturing tread rubber and which was converted into regular tyre manufacturing unit. The unit had a connected load of 220 KVA and it was enhanced to 820 KVA. The said enhancement took place in June, 2008. He relies on Exts.P1 and P2 in this regard. He would contend that as per Ext.P4 order, it should be treated as a new connection. At any rate, he would submit that under paragraph 6 of Ext.P3 order, the Board was obliged to approach the Commission with regard to cases like that of the petitioner and seek the approval of the Commission to deal appropriately with the case of the petitioner WPC.28505/08 R 3 and other similar cases. According to him, in short, this is a case where the consumption pattern for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 would show that there was no adequate consumption, having regard to the fact that the connected load of the petitioner was enhanced from 220 KVA to 820 KVA in June, 2008. 3. Learned senior standing counsel would, on the other hand, submit that actually it may not be correct to suggest that the Board has not approached the Commission as contemplated in paragraph 6 of Ext.P3. He would submit that a perusal of Ext.P4 would show that the Commission has provided for situations where adequate consumption cannot be arrived at for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008. He also points out that the Commission had conveyed its approval for the Norms for fixation of quota in regard to the consumers who do not have adequate consumption during the period in question, by communication dated 7.8.2008. He would further submit that it is for the petitioner to approach the Board and project its case, if having regard to the facts peculiar, it does not fall within the WPC.28505/08 R 4 parameters of Ext.P4. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has in fact already submitted Exts.P6 and P7. But, it is pointed out by the respondents that they are filed before the Special Officer. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the Writ Petition can be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach the first respondent Board and a decision should be taken in the matter before the next Bill is issued to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as above. If the petitioner moves the first respondent within a period of one week from today, the first respondent will look into the matter and take a decision on the same in accordance with law before the Bill relating to the consumption for the month of October, 2008 is issued. Petitioner is also granted time till 6.10.2008 to make the full payment under Ext.P10. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. WPC.28505/08 R 5