K GEORGE MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed by 50 Low Tension consumers of electricity challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 38006 of 2002 upholding the demand of the Electricity Board for three months' probable current charges of the appellants as additional security deposit under Clause 14 of the Regulations Relating to Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990. In the Original Petition, the appellants challenged the power of the Electricity Board to demand additional security deposit. However, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board reported in on the basis of which the learned Single Judge upheld the demand, the appellants are now confining their challenge against the demand to the extent the Electricity Board discriminates between High Tension and Extra High Tension consumers on the one hand and Low Tension consumers on the other, in so far as for High Tension and Extra High Tension consumers, the security deposit is only two months' probable current charges whereas in respect of Low Tension consumers, the amount of security will be equal to three months' probable current charges of the consumer. The learned Single Judge had repelled this contention of the appellants also relying on the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision of Kurikattil Rubber Industries v. K.S.E.B. reported in 1999 (1) KLT 529, the relevant portion of which was quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that in that decision, the learned Single Judge went on the wrong assumption that in respect of High Tension and Extra High Tension consumers, the billing cycle is monthly, whereas the billing cycle of Low Tension consumers are bi-monthly. Counsel submits that although in respect of some categories of Low Tension consumers like domestic consumers, the billing cycle is two months, in respect of the category of Low Tension industrial consumers like the petitioners, the billing cycle is only one month. In support of this contention, the appellants have produced Annexures A1(a) to Al(e) bills issued to one of the appellants, which would go to show that in respect of appellants also, billing cycle is one month. On the strength of the said contention, the appellants contend that there is no essential difference between the High Tension and Extra High Tension consumers in the matter of consumption of electrical energy as also billing cycle and mode of payment. There was no reasonable classification as between them and, therefore, the demand of three months' probable current charges from the appellants as against two months' for Extra High Tension and High Tension consumers offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is therefore illegal and unsustainable.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board.