KAIPUZHA VECHOOR KAYAL KARSHAKA Vs. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner society is challenging coercive steps initiated by the 1st respondent to realize a sum of Rs.34,71,882.00 towards electricity charges due with respect to 7 electric connections provided for agricultural purposes. According to the petitioner, they were conducting agricultural operations in a large extent of land owned by its members, numbering to more than 486 enumerated in Ext.P1 list. It is also stated that all its members, except 7 members, are holding land only to the extent of less than 2 Hectares.

(2.) THE petitioner society is claiming exemption from payment of charges for electricity consumed for agricultural purposes, on the basis of G.O.(MS) No.73/97/AD dated 1-3- 1997, which was subsequently modified through Ext.P3 Government Order. It is evident from records that, request of the petitioner for eligibility certificate was declined by the Agricultural Officers concerned, stating that the benefit envisaged under the relevant Government Orders are applicable only to individual farmers and not to societies. When coercive steps of recovery was initiated, the petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion. By Ext.P9 judgment this Court had quashed the impugned demands without prejudice to liberty of the Electricity Board to examine eligibility in individual cases. However, it was clarified that in cases where the extent is more than the permitted limit of 2 Hectares (mistakenly mentioned as two Acres), it will be open to the Board officials to demand electricity charges. Thereafter Ext.P10 demand was issued without specifically considering the eligibility for the exemption. Therefore, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10.

(3.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that the petitioner society was eligible to be exempted in view of Ext.P3 Government Order and earlier Government Orders issued on the subject. According to them, their individual farmer members are agriculturists cultivating crops within 2 Hectares of land, except in the case of 7 members. Since the agricultural operations relate to a large extent belonging to more than 450 members who are coming within the eligibility criteria, the petitioner society ought to have been exempted from payment electricity charges, is the claim. The society had approached the Agricultural Officers concerned for getting their eligibility declared. But those authorities are taking a consistent stand that the benefits of the relevant Government Orders are available only to individual farmers and not to societies, as replied in Ext.R1(a) and R1(b).