Dismissed

Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. v. a & M Exports

Kerala HC4 Jan 2016WA/970/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by K.S.E.B, holding that the Board cannot be compelled to install a transformer for a shop with a 0.65 KW load in a building below 15 meters. The court directed the utility to grant the electricity connection without demanding a transformer.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Board to give electricity connection to the respondent without demanding a transformer.

Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. Vs a & M Exports — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 970 of 2011 ( )

¶6

-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31806/2009 DATED 02-11-2010

¶7

APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 & 2 :

¶8

1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAVAN,

¶9

NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶10

2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, UDYOG BHAVAN,

¶11

NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI. N. NAGARESH, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT :

¶14

1. A & M EXPORTS, 8/33, ANDATHODE, MANATHALA BEACH ROAD, CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR A.M.ABDULLA.

¶16

2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-682 009.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI. SOORAJ T. ELENJICKAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SC

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2016, ALONG WITH WA NO. 480/2011 & CONNECTED CASES, COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

WA.No. 970 of 2011 ( )

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶24

ANNEXURE A	: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 4.6.2008 AS DOWNLOADED FROM DGFT WEB SITE -www.dgft.gov.in.
ANNEXURE B	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE CHENNAI HIGH COURT IN WA NO. 396 OF 2009 DATED 14.9.2009.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

¶26

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

¶27

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. &

¶28

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶29

W.A No. 970 OF 2011

¶30

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF JUNE, 2012

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Ramachandran Nair, J:

¶33

This is an appeal filed by the K.S.E.B challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge directing them to give electricity connection to the respondent's shop which is 200 sq.ft room purchased by him in a four storied building consisting of 105 rooms. The load required in respondent's shop is stated to be only 650 watts (0.65 KW), for which he is required to arrange a transformer. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the K.S.E.B, counsel appearing for the respondent and have also gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. The respondent purchased a shop room in a commercial building with 4 floors consisting of total number of 105 rooms. The building was constructed in stages and as and when buyers of shop

¶34

W.A No.970/2011 -2-

¶35

rooms applied for electricity connection they were given connections by the K.S.E.B. According to the standing counsel as many as 79 independent connections are given to shop owners in the building as of now. Besides respondent and few other applicants who have applied for separate connection for their shops are not given. The specific case of the K.S.E.B is that if total load is above 50 KVA the building owners are required to install a transformer. Counsel has relied on Annexure-A dated 17-10-2007 issued by the K.S.E.B and Annexure-B dated 3108-2007 issued by the State Electricity Regulatory Commissioner. On going through the documents we notice that there is apparent conflict between K.S.E.B's circular and that of the Regulatory Commission's. While Board requires transformer for every building, the load of the total consumers therein exceeds 50KVA, under the Regulatory Commission's norms transformer is required to be installed by building owner only if total load is above 50KVA and height of the building is above 15 meters. In this case

¶36

W.A No.970/2011 -3-

¶37

admittedly the building is below 15 meters of height and so much so under the Regulatory Commission's norms there is no need for the building owner to install transformer, no matter the total load of all the consumers together is above 50 KVA.

¶38

After hearing both sides what we notice is that in a multi-storied building comprising of several commercial/residential apartments there is nothing wrong in the Board clubbing the load together and demand building owner or occupants together to install a transformer. Unfortunately the Electricity Supply Code does not provide for the same. So much so the requirement of a transformer has to be met by the Board when the building is of the height below 15 meters irrespective of number of consumers and combined load of all of them put together. While leaving freedom to the Board to go to the Regulatory Commission and get orders consistent with to Board's circular dated 17-10-2007, we feel appellant cannot be compelled to install a transformer at an enormous cost for

¶39

W.A No.970/2011

¶40

-4-

¶41

getting electric connection of 0.65 KW in a shop room of 200 sq.ft. We therefore dismiss the writ appeal directing the Board to give connection to the respondent without demanding transformer.

¶42

Sd/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶45

AMG

¶46

True copy

¶47

P.A to Judge

Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. v. a & M Exports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. v. a & M Exports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fiat Justicia, Represented by Its Director Adv. M.L.George Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Munnar Woods

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Autumn Wood Resorts (Cloud 9)

State of Kerala & Others Vs Noushad.M.a. & Others

Director General of Foreign Trade Vs Mustafa Traders & Ors.

Union Bank of India Vs M.J.Betty