Kerala High Court
Indus Towers Limited & Another vs Kerala State Electricity Board & ... on 27 May, 2009
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/14TH CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 23212 of 2011 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS:
--------------------------
1. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED & ANOTHER
SERVICE PROVIDER OF BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED)
VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN
AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD.), 8TH FLOOR
VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM
KOCHI-, 24
2. M/S.BHARATHI CELLULAR LTD., PRESENTLY
KNOWN AS BHARATI INFRATEL LTD., DULY AUTHORISED
HEAD (LEGAL), PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR M.N., 8TH FLOOR
VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYPASS, PADIVATTOM
KOCHI-24.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BOARD SECRETARIAT
VYDHYUTHIBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
SUB SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685533.
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC,K.S.E.B.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SC,KSERC
R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JAMES,SC,KSEB REGULATORY COM
R1,R2 BY ADV. SMT.NAZEEBA.O.H., KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.PAULOSE, SC, KSEB
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kkj
WP(C).No. 23212 of 2011 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GUIDELINES
ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVT.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY GOVT. OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD DATED 27-5-2009.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC 36659/2009 DATED
18-12-2009.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADDL. LOAD PRODUCED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC INDICATING THE
SPLIT UP DETAILS OF LOAD.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE PREMISES.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 30-9-2010
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.23212 of 2011-B
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are Mobile Infrastructure Provider. For the purpose of their operations, they have a mobile communication tower to which an electric connection has been granted by the second respondent. As per the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the Central Government has accepted a policy of permitting various mobile service providers to share the infrastructure facility for the purpose of carrying on their operations. The said policy has been accepted by the State Government as well as the first respondent. The first respondent has issued an order by which, the manner in which such facility is to be shared has been stipulated. The petitioner contends that in spite of the above, they are being penalised without any justification. It is the contention of the petitioner that though permission -:2:- W.P.(C) No.23212 of 2011-B has been sought for from the respondents, no permission has been granted. At the same time, Exhibit P8 bill has been issued.
2. As per the judgment dated 19.02.2014, I have disposed of similar writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.17999 of 2010 and connected cases permitting the petitioner to submit objections to the disputed bills and directing the respondents to consider such objections. Accordingly, they have been directed to pass orders under Sub Section 3 of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner seeks only a similar direction in this writ petition also.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
1. The petitioner shall be at liberty to prefer objections to Exhibit P8 bill.
2. If objections are submitted to the second respondent under Section 126 of the Act within a period of two weeks of the date of -:3:- W.P.(C) No.23212 of 2011-B receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Assessing authority shall consider the said objections, if necessary after conducting an inspection of the installations and verifying the factual aspects on which reliance is placed by the petitioner and shall pass final orders of assessment in terms of sub section 3 of Section 126 of the Act.
3. Orders as indicated above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
4. Pending finalisation of the assessment on the petitioner in accordance with the above directions, all further proceedings to recover the amounts covered by Exhibit P8 bill shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rupees one -:4:- W.P.(C) No.23212 of 2011-B lakh to the second respondent within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj