Dismissed

M/S.Malayalam Chemicals (P) Ltd., v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Kerala HC26 May 2022WP(C)/967/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by M.S. Malayalam Chemicals (P) Ltd. challenging the Electricity Board's order regarding Pre-92 tariff extension and interest relaxation in the context of theft allegations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without specific relief quantification beyond the nature of the dismissal.

M/S.Malayalam Chemicals (P) Ltd., Vs Kerala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 967 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.MALAYALAM CHEMICALS (P) LTD.,
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, EDAYAR, BINANIPURAM, ALUVA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.VELLAISAMY, RESIDING
AT MATHIYACHY POST, KOVILPATTY TALUK,
TAMIL NADU.

¶8

BY ADVS.
J.JULIAN XAVIER
SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
SRI.E.HARIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.

¶11

2THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶12

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POWER (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, GOVT. PRESS P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, KPFC BHAVANAM, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O., TVM695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

BY ADVS.
VIPIN P.VARGHESE, SC, KSERC
SHRI.SREESANKAR.M

¶15

SRI B PREMOD SC KSEB SR GP SRI JUSTIN JACOB

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 967 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶22

prayer:

¶23

“i. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Ext.P13 and quash the original of Ext.P13 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶24

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant pre-92 extension of 921 days instead of 644 days granted in Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P8 judgment and also in the light of the decision reported in 2009 (4) KLT 485.

¶25

iii. To direct the 2^nd respondent to calculate the arrears only by granting duty exemption in the light of Ext.P7 judgment.

¶26

iv. To award cost of these proceedings.

¶27

v. To grant such other reliefs that may be deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶28

Petitioner carried out a commercial production on

¶29

11.03.1996 and while issuing electric connection, was eligible for concessional tariff for a period of five years in the light of the Government orders dated 21.05.1990 and 06.02.1992. The aforementioned concessional tariff was extended for a period of 214 days. Petitioner challenged the fixation of 214 days and

¶30

WP(C) NO. 967 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

sought to grant concessional tariff for the entire power cut period by filing O.P.No.38791/2001 before this Court. While the writ petition was pending, other consumers who were dissatisfied with the period granted by the Government of Kerala in regard to the extension of Pre-92 tariff for the power cut period, approached the Supreme Court. Supreme Court in SVA Steel Re-Rollling Mills Ltd. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (4) SCC 186] directed the respondents to calculate the period during which 100% electricity supply was not given and this Court disposed of the original petition by judgment dated 24.03.2017.

¶33

Respondent No.1 came out with a One Time Settlement

¶34

Scheme as approved by the Regulatory Commission dated 08.06.2018. Though it was stated therein that cases booked under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, ie., theft will not be considered, a representation was submitted to settle the entire liability to grant the benefit of Pre-92 tariff. As no decision was made, petitioner approached this Court and there were direction vide Ex.P11. Pursuant to the direction hearing was conducted and the Board decided to grant an amount of Rs.7,57,624/- to the

¶35

WP(C) NO. 967 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

consumer/petitioner. However, extension of Pre-92 tariff was declined by stating that the issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and regarding duty, it was stated that an amount of Rs.11,54,617/- was due with the petitioner. As far as the relaxation in the interest on the allegation of the theft and consequential demand of Rs.40,51,631/-, the board had granted 50% relaxation in the interest. However, it was placed before the 4^th respondent for approval. 4^th respondent vide order dated 07.02.2020 stated that it has no power to relax any provisions of Sections 126, 127 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and rejected the request made by the 2^nd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court is having wide power to give relaxation qua 50% of the interest.

¶38

Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that case of theft had already been detected against the petitioner under Section 135 of the Kerala Electricity Act, 2003 and demand has been raised of Rs.40,51,631/- as principal liability. Therefore, Regulatory Commission has no power to relax the interest @ 16% or grant 50% exemption. The OTS benefits could not be made

¶39

WP(C) NO. 967 OF 2021

¶40

¶41

available to the petitioner as there was bar for the consumers who were found to have indulged in theft.

¶42

The order of the Regulatory Commission, in my view does not call for any interference while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶43

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶44

nak

¶45

WP(C) NO. 967 OF 2021

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 967/2021

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `24.03.2017 IN O.P`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `.NO.38791/2001.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND`	`ORDER DATED 13.07.2017` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 14.07.2017` `RESPONDENT TO THE`	`CALCULATION STATEMENT` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `23.10.2017 FILED` `THE 2ND RESPONDEN`	`OBJECTION DATED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE` `T.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`NOTICE DATED 27.11.2017.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `19.2.2018 SUBMITT` `RESPONDENT.`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BEFORE THE 3RD`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `25.06.2004 IN OP.` `COPY OF PAGE 1 TO`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `NO.18392/1998 WITH TYPED` `5.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `17.01.2018 IN W.A` `CONNECTED CASES.`	`COMMON JUDGMENT DATED` `.NO.2503/2017 AND`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `08.06.2018 ISSUED`	`BOARD ORDER DATED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `08.09.2018 SUBMIT` `BEFORE THE 2ND RE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `TED BY THE PETITIONER` `SPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `09.11.2018 IN W.P`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `.(C)NO.34366/2018.`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND`	`ORDER DATED 06.11.2019` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH`	`ORDER DATED 07.02.2020` `RESPONDENT.`

M/S.Malayalam Chemicals (P) Ltd., v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Malayalam Chemicals (P) Ltd., v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

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

Bss Educational Society Vs State of Kerala

Bappu.K Vs Union of India

Jose Pereppadan Varghese Vs Regional Passport Officer

Kaithakuzhy Educational Association, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited,Represented by

Kaithakuzhy Educational Association Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Ettonil Aysha Vs the Building Assessment Officer