INDIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY COCHIN CAMPUS, SOUTH END RECLAMATION AREA Vs. COCHIN PORT TRUST WILLINGTON ISLAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Indian Maritime University, which is a central university, which runs a campus in the land/building leased out from the Cochin Port Trust in Willington Island, where Cochin Port Trust is the licensee for distribution of electricity, is aggrieved by the action of re-classifying it under L.T.VIIA tariff, whereby the electricity charges are levied at a rate higher than that applicable to educational institutions.

(2.) Petitioner University set up a campus at Kochi in the land and building allotted by the 1st respondent in Willington Island, on lease, as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.11.2009, for running academic courses. The first respondent provided two service connections to the campus-one to the training institute and the other to the hostel complex. As per Ext.P2 letter dated 07.02.2011, the first respondent had informed the petitioner University that the electricity installations would be billed at L.T.IVC tariff as applicable to educational institutions. Bills were being issued and petitioner had been paying the bills accordingly. In Jan. 2013, petitioner received bills leving charges under L.T.VIIA tariff, applicable to commercial institutions. Though petitioner submitted a complaint against it, the first respondent rejected it as per Ext.P7 letter dated 08.03.2013, stating that re-categorisation was made according to activities of each consumer and accordingly the tariff category of petitioner University was changed to L.T.VIIA, the Tariff applicable to self financingeducational institutions with the approval of the competent authorities. Petitioner thereupon informed the Deputy Chief Engineer of first respondent that it is not a self financing institution and that it was formulated under a Central Act under the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. Petitioner requested to restore it to tariff L.T.IVC as applicable to educational institutions. Then the first respondent directed the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF). Petitioner thereupon approached CGRF, which rejected its petition, as per Ext.P11 letter dated 09.10.2014, stating that petitioner was functioning as a self financing institution. However since all such self financing institutions were brought under L.T.VI General F, tariff, the first respondent was directed to re-assign the tariff under L.T.VIF. Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P11 orders and seeks a direction to respondents to levy charges only at the rates as prescribed for educational institutions. Petitioner is aggrieved by the categorisation of the University under L.T.VIIA tariff from the year 2012-13 onwards.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent revised the tariff unilaterally without giving an opportunity of hearing. Petitioner also alleged that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum does not have jurisdiction to deal with complaints on classification or categorisation for fixing tariff, in the light of the judgment in Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB Vs. Principal Agricultural Officer : 2015(1) KLT 526. It is also the case of the petitioner that there is no basis for classifying it as a self financing institution, when both petitioner and the first respondent are entities functioning under the same Ministry of Shipping.