IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5442 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------ [AGAINST THE ORDER IN REPRESENTATION NO.P.86/09 OF THE STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN] .................. PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KALAMASSERRY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, S.C , K.S.E.B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SRI.M.S.MOHANKUMAR, PORT HILL, COCHIN-682 022. 2. SMT.GEETHA SURESH, PORT HILL, COCHIN-682 022. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.5442 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 order passed by the State Electricity Ombudsman allowing an appeal filed by the respondents herein is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts are as follows. 2. The respondents herein own two separate buildings within the local limits of Kalamassery Municipality. Both buildings have been let out to students undergoing studies in the Cochin University of Science & Technology(CUSAT). Though initially the Board was levying energy charges in respect of the said two buildings, at the rate applicable to domestic connections (LT- 1A) later it was changed to LT VIB with effect from March 2007 for the building belonging to the second petitioner and with effect from September 2008 for the building belonging to the first petitioner. The petitioners thereupon submitted Ext.P1(1) and P2 (2) petitions before the Consumers' Grievance Redressal Forum, Ernakulam objecting to the change in tariff. Upon receipt of notice from the Consumers' Grievance Redressal Forum, the Wpc 5442/2011 2 second petitioner herein filed Ext.P3 objection pointing out that as the buildings belonging to the petitioner are being rented out to students who are residing with the owners of the building as paying guests, the tariff applicable is LT VIB. By Ext.P4 order passed on 29.7.2009, the Consumers' Grievance Redressal Forum, Ernakulam rejected the complaint holding that as respondents have admittedly rented out the building to the students, the tariff applicable is LT VIB non domestic. Aggrieved thereby, respondents carried the matter in appeal before the State Electricity Ombudsman. By Ext.P5 order passed on 30.9.2009, State Electricity Ombudsman allowed the appeal and directed that with effect from 16.3.2009, the tariff applicable shall be LT 1A domestic. The State Electricity Ombudsman also directed that the excess amount collected from the respondents shall be refunded with interest at twice the bank rate in terms of clause 24(6) of the Electricity Supply Code 2005 by adjusting the excess amount paid by the respondents towards the energy charges payable for the next six months. Ext.P5 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that as Wpc 5442/2011 3 the respondents have admittedly rented out the buildings belonging to them to students undergoing studies in the CUSAT, State Electricity Ombudsman erred in interfering with the levy of energy charges. I am afraid the said contention cannot be accepted. The petitioners have no case that the students residing in the buildings belonging to the respondents are paying guests. Under the terms of the tariff order energy charges can be levied under LT VIB non domestic category, only if premises are rented out to students who are paying guests. One of the conditions to be satisfied is that students should occupy the building along with the owners and boarding and lodging shall be as paying guests. In the instant case, as noticed by the State Electricity Ombudsman, there is no material to indicate or establish that the students residing in the buildings owned by the respondents are staying in the said buildings as paying guests. The officers of the Board have not conducted any inspection of the premises. No opportunity was also given to the owners to establish the fact that they are not residing in the residential buildings along with the students who are residing therein. In such circumstances, as the essential ingredient for the levy of energy charges at the Wpc 5442/2011 4 rates applicable to LT VIB cateogry has not been made out, viz the occupation of the building by students along with the owners, it cannot be said that the view taken by the State Electricity Ombudsman is perverse. I therefore find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P5. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE lgk