13. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, relying on the judgment in Board of Trustees of Cochin Port Trust v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. : 2017 (4) KLT 960, argued that petitioner ought to have raised its objections before the 3rd respondent, during the course of the proceedings under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003. I find that such a contention is taken only because of the findings in that judgment rendered much after 2012-13. The first respondent did not have any such case when petitioner's representation was rejected as per Ext.P7 or in Ext.P10 objection raised by them before CGRF. While issuing Ext.P7 letter, the first respondent directed the petitioner to approach the CGRF, which has since been found to have no jurisdiction to deal with such cases. On the other hand the stand of the first respondent was that petitioner had been functioning as self financing institution. Therefore though sub section 2 of Section 64 provides that every applicant shall publish their suggestions for determination of tariff under Section 62, in the prescribed form
