IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 142 of 2002(E) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.17365/1998 Dated 31/10/2001 .................... APPELLANTPETITIONER: ------------------------------------ VANCHINAD FORGINGS PVT.LTD., STEEL ROLLING MILL, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 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. CHIEF ENGINEER, THERMAL AND COMMERCIAL, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1TO3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 142 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 Judgment H.L. Dattu, C. J: Appellant is a consumer of the electricity supplied by the respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. The appellant had approached the respondent Board by its representation dated 27/3/1998 for certain reliefs. The request made in the representation is rejected by the respondent by its order dated 17/8/1998. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner was before this Court in O.P.No.17365/1998. The learned single Judge by his order dated 31/10/2001 has rejected the writ petition. That is how the petitioner in the writ petition has filed this writ appeal. 3. 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 WA.142/2002 2 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 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. WA.142/2002 3 Hence there is no merit in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of what has been stated by a Division Bench of this Court, in our opinion, it is difficult to sustain the impugned orders passed by the respondent. Therefore we pass the following Order 5. Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. The respondent Board is directed to consider the representation filed by the appellant dated 27/3/1998 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.808/1998 disposed of on 28/4/1998, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In view of the order passed in the writ appeal, all the interlocutory applications are closed. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an.