Allowed

Antu Sebastian, v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC13 Mar 2024WP(C)/15807/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging KSEB demands alleging misuse of an LT-V agricultural connection used for growing ornamental fishes and aquatic plants. Court held that since activities like poultry farms and piggery attract agricultural tariff, the petitioner's aquaculture could not be denied it; demands quashed and amounts remitted ordered refunded.

What did the court decide?

Demands under Ext.P3 confirmed in Ext.P5 held unsustainable; amount remitted for appeal to be refunded without interest within one month, else with interest.

Antu Sebastian, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15807 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ANTU SEBASTIAN,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT PERUMAYAN HOUSE,
CHOWARA.P.O,
ALUVA- 683542.
BY ADV T.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶10

2 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

¶11

3 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHOWARA-683571.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

DHEERAJ A.S. -GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C)No.15807 of 2011

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶19

challenging the demands made on the petitioner by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) upon the allegation that a connection granted to the petitioner for agricultural purposes under LT-V tariff is being misused by the petitioner.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶21

The petitioner claims that, on 1.75 acres of land belonging to the father of the petitioner, 50 cents

¶22

was paddy land and the rest of the land was being utilized for cultivating coconut palms, plantains, vegetables etc. He states that, since the traditional agricultural activities became highly uneconomic, the petitioner obtained training from the Marine Products Export Development Authority of India and started growing aquatic plants and ornamental fishes. He states

¶23

WP(C)No.15807 of 2011

¶24

¶25

that he is now a successful aquatic plant cultivator and is cultivating 70 different varieties of aquatic plants and ornamental fishes on the property. The petitioner states that, for the purposes of the above, the petitioner has created ponds on the property. The principal contention of the petitioner is that, under LT-V tariff, the agricultural activities include poultry farm, silkworm breeding units, and combination of live stock and dairy farms, piggery farms etc. It is submitted that, if the above activities are also falling within agricultural tariff, there is no rhyme or reason to deny such agricultural tariff to the petitioner also. It is thus submitted that the demands now raised on the petitioner are unsustainable in law. On receiving Ext.P3 demand, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. However, the second respondent dismissed the appeal by Ext.P5 order. It is thus that the petitioner is before this Court by filing the above writ petition.

¶26

WP(C)No.15807 of 2011

¶27

¶28

The learned Standing Counsel appearing

¶29

for the KSEB would contend that it is clear from the petitioner’s own submissions in Ext.P4 that the petitioner is not entitled to LT-V tariff, which is exclusively for agricultural activities. It is submitted that the growing of ornamental fishes and aquatic plants is clearly a commercial activity for which, the petitioner is not entitled to electric supply at the rates applicable to agricultural connections. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, no fault can be found with the demand raised by the KSEB. It is submitted that Appellate Authority has properly considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and no ground has been made out for grant of relief in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that pending the writ petition, the electric connection granted to the petitioner has been dismantled.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing

¶31

¶32

¶33

Counsel appearing for the KSEB, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The petitioner has a specific case that LT-V tariff is applicable to activities such as poultry farms, silkworm breeding units, and combination of live stock and dairy farms, piggery farms etc. The counter affidavit filed does not specifically deny the above contention of the petitioner. If the LT-V tariff for agricultural activities is applicable to poultry farms, silkworm breeding units and combination of live stock and dairy farms, piggery farms etc., there is no reason to deny the same to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is growing aquatic plants and ornamental fishes. If the activity of the petitioner is classified as commercial, several of the activities mentioned above under LT-V tariff will also have to be treated as commercial. Consequently the demands raised on the petitioner under Ext.P3, and confirmed in Ext.P5 are unsustainable.

¶34

¶35

¶36

Considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the KSEB that the connection of the petitioner has been dismantled nearly two years ago, there will be a direction that the amount remitted by the petitioner, as a condition for maintaining the appeal, shall be refunded to the petitioner without interest within a period of one month from today. If the amount is not refunded within the aforesaid period, the respondents will be liable to pay interest in accordance with the law.

¶37

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶38

Sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE

rkj

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15807/2011

¶43

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`A TRUE` `BY THE` `CHOWARA`	`COPY` `SUB` `DATE`	`OF THE S` `ENGINEE` `D 10/12/`	`CENE MAHAZAR PREPARED` `R ELECTRICAL SECTION` `2010.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`A TRUE` `ISSUED`	`COPY` `BY TH`	`OF THE` `E 3RD RE`	`BILL DATED 17/12/2010` `SPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`A` `NO.DB/I` `1-11 IS`	`TRUE` `NSPEC` `SUED`	`CO` `TION/201` `BY THE 3`	`PY` `OF` `ORDER` `0-11/6-1-2011/93/10-` `RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`WRITTEN`	`SUBM`	`ISSION O`	`F THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`A TRUE` `2ND RES`	`COPY` `PONDE`	`OF THE` `NT IN AP`	`ORDER PASSED BY THE` `22/2010-11/692.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`A TRUE` `FROM OF` `8/6/201`	`COPY` `FICE` `1.`	`OF THE` `OF THE`	`DEMAND LETTER ISSUED` `3RD RESPONDENT DATED`

Antu Sebastian, v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antu Sebastian, v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kerala State Consumer Federation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise

Maheen Kannu M. Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Nizamudheen M K Vs Union of India

Bharathan Suresh Babu, S/O.Late Bharathan, Vs State of Kerala

Harees M.U Vs the Village Officer

Velayudhankutty (Propreitor), Vs Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary