Allowed

Sri.N.R.Prasad v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC7 Mar 2012WP(C)/8518/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the assessment of electricity dues under the LT-VII commercial tariff. Referencing a prior Division Bench judgment, it set aside the impugned order and directed re-assessment under the LT-IV industrial tariff.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioners to be re-assessed at LT-IV industrial tariff with adjustment or refund of excess paid.

Sri.N.R.Prasad Vs K.S.E.B. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/17TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8518 of 2005 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.R.PRASAD, S/O.NARAYANA IYER, M/S.FOTO FOCUS, ANUGRAHA COMPLEX, H.P.O. ROAD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT 601, A-WING, MOTA NAGAR, ANDHERI (EAST) BOMBAY, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.R.RAMAMOORTHY.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD,

¶9

SRI.D.NARENDRANATH, SRI.M.HARISHARMA, SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶12

VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS (HQ), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIGILANCE WING, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶15

APTS, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

¶16

PALAKKAD.

¶17

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,

¶18

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD.

¶19

BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN, SC, K.S.E. BOARD.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

WP(C).No. 8518 of 2005 (L)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/10/1996 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 05/04/2004 PREPARED BY PRASAD MATHEW, AEE, APTS, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/04/2004 NO.BB/SS/2004-05/12 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.8003 DATED 30/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 07/08/2001.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11/05/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/05/2004 IN W.P.(C)NO. 14766/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2005 NO.APTS/BV/1534/04/KKD / 222/04 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL NO.BB/SS/2004-05/13/DT. ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE INVOICE/REVISED BILL DATED 01/03/2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No.8518 of 2005

¶32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶33

Dated this the 7 th day of March, 2012.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for KSEB.

¶36

The main question raised in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is rightly assessed by the respondents to pay electricity dues as per LT-VII commercial tariff or his electricity dues were entitled to be assessed as per LT-IV industrial tariff.

¶37

A copy of the judgment of this Court in a similar case was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The operative portion of the judgment pronounced in W.A.No.1637 of 2011 dated 7/12/2011 by a Division Bench of this Court is as follows:

¶38

“On going through the judgment, what we notice is that photo colour printing unit is eligible for LT-IV tariff, which is for industrial purpose. Even though sales by itself should go under commercial tariff, in this case essentially the respondent is an industry eligible for LTIV tariff. The only reason for applying LT-VIIA commercial tariff is that they have a sales outlet in the same premises. We do not thing the small power consumption in the sales counter will alter the nature of the connection from industrial to commercial.”

¶39

In the light of the said judgment, the impugned order is set aside and I direct the first respondent to re-assess the electricity dues of the petitioner as per the LT-IV industrial tariff and if any excess

¶40

W.P.C.No.8518 of 2005

¶41

¶42

amount has been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted towards the future bills of the petitioner or it can be refunded. The entire proceedings in this regard shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed as above.

¶44

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶45

su/-

Sri.N.R.Prasad v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.N.R.Prasad v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Girija Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Girija Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Tecil Chemicals and Hydor Power Vs State of Kerala and Others

Lions Club of Muvattupuzha Vs K.S.E.B.

Dileep a.S.& Others Vs Kerala Public Service Commission and Anr.

Abraham Mathew Vs Kerala State Electricity Board