Kerala High Court
Cochin Port Trust Willingdon Island vs Indian Maritime University on 20 December, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KER 931
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY ,THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WA.No. 2249 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8810/2015 of HIGHCOURT
APPELLANT/S:
COCHIN PORT TRUST WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN -
682 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 INDIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY
COCHIN CAMPUS, SOUTH END RECLAMATION AREA, NH
47A, NEAR ALEXANDER PARAMBITHARA BRIDGE,
MATSYAPURI P.O., W/ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI V B HARI NARAYANAN - R1
SRI SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R2
SRI S SUJIN R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A No.2249/2018
2
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J The appeal is filed from a judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Cochin Port Trust is the appellant, who is the licencee in so far as the supply of power to those persons, who have leasehold rights in the land and buildings allotted to them within the Willingdon Island. The 1 st respondent was before this Court with a writ petition challenging their classification in so far as the tariff stipulation with respect to the 1 st respondent, an educational institution established under a Central Act under the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India carrying on Graduate and Post Graduate courses.
2. The first respondent was classified originally as LT IV C. Later the Electricity W.A No.2249/2018 3 Regulatory Commission had by Ext.R1(b) re- classified the educational institutions as aided institutions and self financing institutions, a higher tariff being applied to the latter ones. The 1st respondent being an aided institution under the Central Government was eligible to be classified as LT VI A. However, on reclassification in accordance with Ext.R1(b) the 1st respondent was classified under LT VII A tariff as a self financing institution.
3. The 1st respondent hence took up the matter with the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Appellant pointing out that they are established under a Central Act and their courses are not self financing, the same being carried on with the grant of the Central Government. The appellant then, directed the respondent to approach the Consumer Redressal Grievance Forum (for brevity "CGRF") W.A No.2249/2018 4 which rejected its petition as per Ext.P11. The 1st respondent then, filed the writ petition and subsequently with effect from 26.12.2015 the 1st respondent was classified as LT VI A.
4. The 1st respondent was before this Court alleging mis-classification for the period from 2012-13 to 27.12.2015. The appellant before this Court took up a contention that the CGRF does not have jurisdiction to deal with classification or categorisation of tariff in the light of the judgment of a Single Judge (myself) in 2017(5) KHC 506 [Board of Trustees of Cochin Port Trust v. KSEB Ltd] which followed the decision in 2015(1) KLT 526 [Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB v. Principal Agricultural Officer].
5. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment found that the remedy of CGRF was pointed out by the appellant themselves. It was also found W.A No.2249/2018 5 that there could be no fault found against the 1 st respondent insofar as the cited decision being subsequent to the application before the CGRF. We are of the opinion that if there is no jurisdiction; despite the decision being subsequent, the order would have to be declared non est in law. However, that does not affect the appellant herein insofar as the appellant's remedy then would have been only under Article 226, especially since on the facts herein there was no scope for an adjudication to be carried out by the Commission.
6. The appellant however contends that the remedy was before the Commission itself who alone could change the categorisation. In this context we have to look at Ext.R1(b) and find that the Commission has not specified any particular tariff for the 1st respondent individually. What has been W.A No.2249/2018 6 done is a bifurcation of tariff applicable to educational institutions; LT VI A being applicable for aided educational institutions and LT VII A being applicable for self-financing educational institutions. The 1st respondent's contention before the appellant was also that they were mis-classified as a self-financing institution. Hence there was nothing the Electricity Regulatory Commission could have done and it was for the appellant to see whether the classification was correct or not.
7. We also see that the 1st respondent has been classified as an aided educational institution from 27.12.2015 without any change in the constitution, status or functioning of the 1st respondent institution. Hence the appellant as of now admits that the 1st respondent was all through an aided institution receiving grant from the W.A No.2249/2018 7 Central Government. In such circumstances we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We however, make it clear that if the 1st respondent is continuing the leasehold rights then the excess payment would be debited in future bills ensuring that the entire excess amounts collected on the basis of the higher tariff applied is adjusted.
The appeal would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. Vinod Chandran,
Judge
Sd/-
Ashok Menon,
Judge
jma