Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited vs The Kerala State Electricity Appellate ... on 23 May, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2019 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No. 12004 of 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION),
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695 004
2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
AGED 1 YEARS
KSEB ELECTRICAL SECTION, VAZHAKKULAM, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 105
BY ADV. SRI.N.SATHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY
C.C.51/52, NEAR 110KV SUB STATION, VYTTILA, KOCHI -
682 019
2 SRI.K.V.VEERAS
PROPRIETORS V.N SAND, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
ARAKKAPADY, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 556
R1 SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12004 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board [KSEB for short] challenging Ext. P4 order of the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority [hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Authority' for short], as per which it has applied the vires of the judgment of this Court in Sulabha Marketing Private Limited Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. [2017 (3) KHC 563] and has granted benefits to the respondent herein.
2. The specific stand of the KSEB is that Sulabha Marketing Private Limited [supra] has already been challenged by them before the Honourable Supreme Court by filing an SLP; and, therefore, that the conclusions therein ought not to have been accepted by the Appellate Authority while issuing the impugned order. No other substantial ground has been raised in this writ petition because the KSEB concedes that if the findings in Sulabha Marketing Private Limited [supra], WP(C).No. 12004 of 2019 3 is applied, the impugned order cannot be found to be in error.
3. I have heard Sri. N. Satheesh, the learned standing counsel for the KSEB and Sri. Jacob E. Simon, the learned counsel for the second respondent.
4. Sri. N. Satheesh, the learned standing counsel for the KSEB submits that the appellate order is being challenged by the KSEB only because Sulabha Marketing Private Limited [supra] is already pending in an SLP preferred before the Supreme Court. He says that in the event the Honourable Supreme Court reverses the conclusions in the Sulabha Marketing Private Limited [supra], the findings in the impugned order would also be automatically reversed. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.
5. Sri. Jacob E. Simon, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that, as is clear from the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has applied the directions in Sulabha Marketing Private Limited [supra] correctly and that since the Honourable Supreme WP(C).No. 12004 of 2019 4 Court has not granted any stay of the operation of the said judgment, the Appellate Authority is completely justified in having issued the impugned order. He adds that even on the facts of this case, it is obvious that there is no requirement for enhancement of voltage level of supply or for the upgradation of the distribution system and therefore, that only double the fixed charges can be imposed against the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that since the KSEB has no such case, the impugned order must be allowed to stand.
6. On a consideration of the afore submissions, it is inevitable that I am fully bound by the conclusions in Sulabha Marketing Private Limited [supra], since it has been delivered by a Division Bench. Merely because the said judgment is pending in an SLP before the Honourable Supreme Court, it would not be justified for this Court, from the stand point of judicial propriety and discipline, to vary from the conclusions of the said judgment. Unless the said judgment is set aside or atleast stayed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the Appellate Aauthority is WP(C).No. 12004 of 2019 5 bound by the same and enjoined to follow its mandate.
7. In such view, I see no reason to entertain the challenge made by the KSEB in this writ petition and I, therefore, dismiss it; however leaving full liberty to the KSEB to act in future as per the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court, if any order contrary to Sulabha Marketing Private Limited [supra] is issued in the SLP.
8. Resultantly, the KSEB will implement the impugned order of the Appellate Authority forthwith and also issue consequential orders, if so necessary. They shall also adjust the amounts deposited by the petitioner before the statutory Appellate Authority, if any, in their future bills.
The Writ Petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
kmd JUDGE
WP(C).No. 12004 of 2019
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12004/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DATED 16-
08-2017
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL BILL DATED
19-08-2017
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL BILL DATED 29-09-
2017
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26-12-2017 OF
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN APPEAL
NO.288/2017