Kerala High Court
Mahatma Gandhi University vs Represented on 30 October, 2014
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/8TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WP(C).No. 21784 of 2010 (W)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
-----------
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES,
REGIONAL CENTRE,
CHUTTIPPARA CAMPUS, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY
ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANUJA.K.
BY ADVS.SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
RESPONDENTS :
--------------
1.REPRESENTED
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
2.ELECTRICAL
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
SECTION, PATHANAMTHITTA.
3.POWER
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4.REPRESENTEDSTATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
THE KERALA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R-4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SC,KSERC
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC,K.S.E.B.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JAMES,SC,KSEB REGULATORY COM
R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB
BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
BY SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR,SC,KSEB REGULATORY COM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 21784 of 2010 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.8/12/2009 IN W.P.
(C)No.12357/08 OF THIS COURT.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.7/1/2010 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF 9,637/-.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.15/2/2010 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF 16,526/-.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.17/2/2010
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.6/3/2010 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF 16,481/-.
EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.5/4/2010 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF 18,483/-.
EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.10/5/2010 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF 16,969/-.
EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DTD.27/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
True copy
P.A to Judge
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.21784 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, Mahatma Gandhi University is having an educational institution, namely, School of Technology and Applied Sciences at its Regional Centre, Chuttippara Campus in Pathanamthitta District. The School of Technology and Applied Sciences is having an electricity connection with Consumer No.886-0 under the KSEB Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. With effect from 1/12/2007, the petitioner's educational institution has been classified under LT-VIIA tariff from LT-VIA tariff and the petitioner was issued with Exts.P3, P5, P6 and P7 demand notices. The petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking various reliefs including a writ of certiorari to quash the demand made in Exts.P3, P5, P6 and P7.
2. By order dated 13/7/2010, this Court ordered that:-
"There will be an interim stay in respect of arrears if any, subject to the W.P.(C).No.21784 of 2010 2 condition that the current liability shall be satisfied by the petitioner under LT VIIA Tariff, which will be subject to the result of the Writ Petition, in tune with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.660 of 2010."
3. The question involved in this Writ Petition is as to whether private self-financing educational institutions are liable to be charged under LT-VIIA tariff, in distinction with private aided educational institutions, which are charged under LT-VIA tariff. The issue stands settled in favour of the petitioner, as per a Division Bench decision of this Court in Bro. Joseph Antony Vs. K.S.E.B (2009 (3) KLT 1022). It is brought to my notice that, the above decision is under challenge before the Apex Court in various Special Leave Petitions filed by the KSEB, and the Apex Court had stayed operation of the said judgment. However, unless the legal position is reversed, this Court is bound to follow the decision in Bro. Joseph Antony's case (supra), in view of the principle laid down by this Court in Abdu Rehiman Vs. W.P.(C).No.21784 of 2010 3 District Collector, Malappuram (2009 (4) KLT 485).
4. The further challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exts.P3, P5, P6 and P7 demand notices whereby the petitioner was requested to make payment of arrears of electricity charges at enhanced rate, i.e., under LT-VIIA tariff. The question regarding liability of the petitioner for payment at enhanced rate will depend upon outcome of the decision of the Apex Court. In view of the stay granted by the Apex Court, I am not inclined to restrain the respondent Board from charging the petitioner under the enhanced tariff. This is because of the fact that, if ultimately the Apex Court upholds the change of tariff, the respondent Board will be put to prejudice. On the other hand, the petitioner can seek refund/adjustment if the decision is ultimately in favour of the consumers. But it is only just and proper to restrain the respondent Board from recovering the arrears on the basis of the enhanced tariff, till the matter is ultimately decided by the Apex Court.
W.P.(C).No.21784 of 2010 4
5. Therefore this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance recovery of arrears demanded under Exts.P3, P5, P6 and P7 notices till ultimate decision is rendered by the Apex Court in the SLPs referred above. It is made clear that the respondents are free to charge the petitioner under LT VIIA tariff for continued consumption of energy. It is made clear that payments made under the enhanced tariff will be liable to be refunded/adjusted in case the Apex Court upholds the judgment in Bro. Joseph Antony's case (supra). It is also made clear that the respondents will be entitled to recover the arrears, if the change of tariff is ultimately upheld by the Apex Court.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj