WA.No. 1368 of 2013 in WP(C). 102/2011. Case: The Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydhyuthi Bhavan and The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Consumer Exports, Star Fish, The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (KSEB), Thaanath Electricity Ombudsman and M.V. Mohamood. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | WA.No. 1368 of 2013 in WP(C). 102/2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri. T.R. Rajan, SC, K.S.E.B., Adv. 3rd to 5th Respondents and For Respondents: Sri. Blaze K. Jose, R1 and Sri. Johnson Manayani |
| Judges | Antony Dominic and Anil K. Narendran, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure |
| Judgement Date | March 10, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Antony Dominic, J., (At Ernakulam)
1. These appeals are filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board and its officers aggrieved by the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.102/2011, 38040/2010 and 79/2011.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners.
3. The respondents/petitioners, are owners of sea food processing plants which availed of supply of electrical energy from the appellants. The Tariff applicable was under LT-IV (Industrial). While so, by order dated 26/11/2007, a tariff order was issued whereunder freezing and cold storage were shifted from LT IV to LT VII-A (commercial). This was challenged before this Court. But the respondents/petitioners were relegated to pursue their remedies before the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Accordingly, Regulatory Commission was moved which by its order dated 29/8/2008, ordered that sea food processing unit shall be billed under LT IV Industrial category and consumers engaged in the freezing and cold storage activity shall be billed under LT VII-A commercial category. This was confirmed in Ext.P2 order passed by the Commission also.
4. The premises of the respondents were inspected when, insofar as the respondents in W.A.No.1368 of 2013 is concerned, it was found that the supply in Consumer No.11144 was used for freezing and cold storage activity in the premises to which supply was available at Consumer No.5386 and not for processing. Similarly on inspection of Consumer No.19425 concerning the respondents in W.A.No.1406 of 2013 it was found in the mahazar dated 29/10/2009 that at the time of inspection supply was used only for freezing and cold storage and not for processing. Similar finding has been entered in the mahazar dated 29/10/2009 concerning Consumer No.10622 of the respondent in W.A.No.1370 of 2013 also. Based on the above finding bills were issued to the respondents.
5. The levy under LT-IV to LT VII-A and demanding differential amounts for the period from 01/12/2007 was challenged before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum also and before the Electricity Ombudsman and these authorities have confirmed the demand. It is in this background the party respondents filed the Writ Petitions. In the common judgment under Appeal, the learned Single Judge confirmed the shifting of Tariff from LT-IV to LT-VII A. However, the learned Judge held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial