ALEXANDER PANICKER Vs. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the proprietor of an SSI unit engaged in manufacture of RC stabilisers and maintenance of Fax, STD-ISD, Telex, Computers and office automation products. Electrical connection provided to the petitioner's industry was included under LT-IV tariff. Subsequently the petitioner started software development and training in the same premises as a franchisee of an organisation viz. NIIT, in November, 1998. Thereafter the petitioner had applied and obtained sanction for additional load to the extent of 15 KVA. Issue involved in this writ petition pertains to change of tariff effected from LT IV to LT VII, in the bill issued during the year 1999. Since Exts.P1 and P2 representations submitted by the petitioner against the bill evoked no response, it was challenged before this court in OP.No.5955/1999. This court directed the 1st respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Through Ext.P4 the petitioner was informed that he is using electricity for educational and industrial purposes, out of which nearly 70% of the load is used only for educational purposes, and unless the petitioner applies for separate connection for educational activities and industrial activities, he will be charged under the commercial tariff. On the above basis subsequent bills were also issued against the petitioner. Ultimately, OP.No.5955/99 was disposed of by this court through Ext.P7 judgment, permitting the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned bills before the 4th respondent. Appeal petition filed was disposed of by the 4th respondent through Ext.P10 order. It was found that 70% of the load was being used for the computer education centre and therefore the petitioner is liable for payment under LT VI tariff, which is applicable to 'educational institutions'. The bill issued under LT VII tariff was directed to be modified. Further it was directed that unless the additional load is regularised the petitioner is liable to be imposed with penalty as per clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The appellate authority directed that, billing under LT VI tariff need to be continued unless the connected load is separated for distinct purposes. Exhibits P11 and P11 (a) are the revised bills issued in accordance with the appellate order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order, P11 and P11(a) . Inter alia the petitioner is seeking direction to recompute the energy charges under LT IV tariff.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that, it is the declared policy of the Government to promote IT based industries and training centers. Ext.P6 is a paper clipping produced about declaration of the policy in which it is stated that computer education centres will be treated as industrial activity and will be classified as under LT IV tariff.

(3.) THE question posed for consideration is regarding correctness of the tariff under which consumption of the petitioner need be charged. Admittedly at the time of availing the connection the petitioner was a small scale industrial unit. But subsequently the activity was diversified into a franchisee center of NIIT. The petitioner had contended that other franchisees of the same organisation are still charged under LT IV. It is the argument that software training or computer education center is recognised as an industrial activity as per the declared policy of the Government. According to the petitioner, at any rate the activity will not amount to altering the nature of the consumption as that of an educational institution. Hence computation of charges under LT VIA is unsustainable, is the contention.