IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 785 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.12306/2002 DATED 29/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- M/S.PALM FIBERS & YARNS TRADING CO., PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (TARIFF & COMMERCIAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, S.P.PURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 TO 4 MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ R.P.No.785 of 2009 in O.P.No.12306 of 2002 -------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of October, 2009 ------------------------------ O R D E R The petitioner seeks review of the judgment in O.P.No.12306/2002 dated 29/5/2009. The claim in the original petition was for pre-92 tariff as announced by the Government by Ext.P1 order, which was adopted and implemented by the Board. The original petition was disposed of directing that the benefit of Ext.P1 will be given to the petitioner in respect of consumer Nos.13070 & 13427 for the period from 11/7/1994 to 23/5/1998, and from 14/7/1995 to 23/5/1998 respectively. This order was passed on the basis that from 23/5/1998, the petitioner had availed of supply as an HT consumer, as against its previous supply as an LT consumer, and that the supply since 23/5/1998 was made as a new consumer. 2. In this review petition, the petitioner seeks to have the R.P.No.785/2009 in O.P.No.12306/2002 -2- aforesaid finding reviewed relying on Annexure I, which suggests that the connected load under the HT connection included the connected load under the LT connection as well. On this basis, it is argued that for the quantity consumed as LT consumer, the concessional tariff should be given for the full period. 3. A reading of the judgment shows that on the materials produced, it was concluded that supply as HT consumer was treating the petitioner as a new consumer, and if that be so, Annexure I itself does not render the judgment factually erroneous calling for its review. Therefore, payer for review on the basis of Annexure I, is only to be rejected. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure 2 letter dated 12/10/2009 issued by the Board calling upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.43,91,673/-, which according to the Board is the arrears due from the petitioner. The petitioner complains that this quantification was made without extending the benefit that was ordered to be given to them in the judgment referred to above. 5. As already noticed, pre-92 concessional tariff was directed to be given to the petitioner in respect of consumer R.P.No.785/2009 in O.P.No.12306/2002 -3- No.13070 for the period from 11/7/1994 to 23/5/1998, and in respect of consumer No.13427 for the period from 14/7/95 to 23/5/1998. This means that the respondents should quantify the amount due from the petitioner at concessional tariff and the excess amount realised during the period should be refunded. This judgment having become final, before demanding arrears from the petitioner, the Board ought to have quantified the admissible benefit that the petitioner was entitled to, and could have demanded only the balance amount. A reading of Annexure 2 shows that this exercise has not been undertaken by the respondents. Therefore, it is directed that the respondents shall quantify the amount due from the petitioner and the excess amount collected from the petitioner for the aforesaid period shall be adjusted towards their dues, and demand the balance, if any, i.e. due from the petitioner. It is directed that until the quantification is made and a revised demand is served on the petitioner, further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 2 will be kept in abeyance. This review petition is closed accordingly. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg