Kerala High Court
WP(C)/30259/2012 of SUNITHA JOY Vs THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 30259 of 2012 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- SUNITHA JOY, SUNITHA AGRO FOODS,ATTUPURAM, AYROOR P.O. MANJALI HOUSE, AYROOR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 30259 of 2012 (F)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
SUNITHA JOY,
SUNITHA AGRO FOODS,ATTUPURAM, AYROOR P.O.
MANJALI HOUSE, AYROOR - 683 579.
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMKISSION, K.P.F.C.BHAVAN, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD,VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. K.P.F.C.BHAVAN, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD,VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHY BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. VAIDYUTHY BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,K.S.E.B, PERUMBAVOOR
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,CHANGAMANAD ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,CHANGAMANAD ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KUNNUKARA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KUNNUKARA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
R BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
R BY SRI.ANEESH JAMES,SC,KSEB REGULATORY COM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
EXT.P2:THE TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE AND FEE RECEIPT.
EXT.P3:THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 2/6/2012. INDUSTRIES OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 2/6/2012.
EXT.P4:THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
EXT.P5:THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P6:THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT ANNEXURES DATED 14/8/2012 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT ANNEXURES DATED 14/8/2012
EXT.P7:THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6/11/2012.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30259 of 2012
-------------------------------
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The short question is as to whether the petitioner isliable to pay tariff under LT-IV or LT-VII A in regard to her smallscale industrial unit. Ext.P5 order of the Consumer GrievanceRedressal Forum of the Kerala State Electricity Board concludesas follows:- “The petitioner is at liberty to file appeal before theElectricity Ombudsman within 30 days of receipt ofthis order, if the petitioner is not satisfied with thisdecision.”
2. The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commissioner was therefore justified in not entertaining Ext.P6petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P5 order. Ext.P7 letterreturning Ext.P6 petition to the petitioner advising her to file apetition before the Electricity Ombudsman cannot be faultedwith. The applicability of the tariff to individual cases cannot bethe subject matter of dispute before the Kerala State ElectricityRegulatory Commission. I am fortified in this view by the W.P.(C) No.30259 of 2012
judgment of the Supreme Court in The Maharashtra StateElectricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Lloyds Steel IndustriesLtd. [AIR (2008) SC 1042].
3. I permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal beforethe Electricity Ombudsman within a period of two weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All othercontentions are left open to be considered in the appeal, if any,filed before the Electricity Ombudsman within the timespecified above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.CHITAMBARESH,Judge.
nj.