MRF LTD Vs. CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. They had entered into the agreement Ext.Pl dated 6.10.1993 by which the K.S.E.Board had assured uninterrupted and firm supply of electricity subject to certain terms and conditions agreed to therein. Agreement has also referred to the Government Order dated 6.2.1992 which was adopted by the Board providing for special concessional tariff to industries undertaking expansion or diversification and also the order dated 13.4.1993 issued by the Government of Kerala in consultation with the Board the petitioner would be eligible for the special concessional tariff for 5 years from the date of commercial production. It was in pursuance of the agreement Ext.Pl the Board issued proceedings dated 23.2.1998 declaring that the petitioner shall be entitled to special concessional tariff in electricity consumed for its expanded and diversified portion.

(2.) Petitioner submitted that acting on the offers and promises held out by the Board and the Government they invested more than Rs. 100 crores and undertook substantial expansion and diversification of the factory. Board had later issued Ext.P4 notification revising the electricity tariff for extra high tension consumers with effect from 1.2.1997. Petitioner submitted that the tariffs fixed under the said order are much higher rates than the tariffs in Ext.P3 order which is the pre-1992 tariff applicable to the petitioner. Ext.P4 order further provided for different methods of billing and also "differential pricing system" with the aid of TOD meter. Petitioner submitted by the differential pricing system higher tariff rates are to be imposed under Ext.P4 order. Later Ext.P5 notification was also issued by the Board pertaining to differential pricing of extra high tension consumers. Petitioner was later served with Ext.P6 bill. Aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred an appeal. Appeal was directed to be disposed of by this Court by judgment in O.P. No. 3182 of 1999 and the Board passed Ext.P8 order dated 7.7.1999 disposing of the petitioner's appeal. Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P8 and has approached this Court seeking a declaration that petitioner is not liable to pay any charges or tariff or price in excess of the pre-1992 tariff as provided in Ext.P1 agreement and Ext.P2 order and also challenging the levy of increased charges on the electricity supplied to the expanded and diversified portion of the petitioner's industrial unit under the differential pricing system with the aid of TOD meter.

(3.) A counter affidavit was earlier filed through the then standing counsel of the Board without adverting to any of the contentions raised in the writ petition. Lawyer appointed by the Board has a duty to file a proper counter affidavit dealing with all legal contentions raised by the petitioner. We have therefore to rely much on the reply given by the Secretary, Electricity Board to the petitioner vide Ext.P8 communication dated 7.7.1999 to examine the various contentions raised in this Writ Petition.