T K SUBRAHMANIAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2016, the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.28928/2003, 12172/2004 and 33401/2003 OP Nos.32396/2002 and 13040/2003 are before us in these Writ Appeals. Petitioners in WP(C) No.35135/2003, WP(C) No.6326/2005 and 15693/2006 which too were disposed vide the impugned common judgment, did not prefer to appeal. In view of the common issues that arose for consideration in all these matters, they were heard and decided together.

(2.) Could the Kerala State Electricity Board ('Board', for brevity) enhance the rate of minimum guarantee charges agreed to between the agriculturists and the Board on change of circumstances, is the question to be decided. The facts in brief are that the petitioners, who claim to be agriculturists and marginal farmers, along with 237 others entered into a Minimum Guarantee Agreement on 16.11.1990 with the KSEB for extension of electricity to their properties in Pottamplavu in Eruvessy Panchayat, Kannur District. The capital cost of work at that point in time was estimated at Rs.6, 56, 000/-. The guaranteed amount was to be paid for over a period of 10 years at the rate of Rs.38.05 per month per consumer. Tenders were invited in 1996. However, the work could no be allotted. Subsequently, when the work was ultimately taken up, estimate had to be worked out again, and was revised to Rs.31, 86, 989/-. The consumers were informed as per Ext.P2 letter dated 19.6.2000 (produced in OP No.32396/2002) that instead of Rs.38.05 per month, they would have to pay a bi-monthly minimum guarantee amount of Rs.408.57. The work got completed in June 2001 and demand by way of Ext.P3 was raised. Exts.P4 & P5 (produced in OP No.32396/2002) are such bills which contain the revised amount. The petitioners would contend that the Board was under obligation to stick to Ext.P1 minimum guarantee agreement (produced in OP No.32396/2002) and that they could not have claimed more than Rs.38.05 per month towards the guaranteed amount. The petitioners would also contend that the Original Petition filed earlier as OP No.23193/2000 was disposed of making the interim order in CMP.No.39093/2000 dated 11.8.2000 permitting them to pay an amount of only Rs.180/-, absolute. The petitioners contend that the petitioners are similarly placed and that the benefit should be extended to them as well.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the Board in OP No.13040/2003, it is stated that minimum guarantee agreement was executed on 26.6.1993 between the Board and 237 consumers. Tender was called in 1996. Thereafter, when the work commenced, a group of 124 minimum guarantors of Pothenplavu requested for alternation in the alignment of the electricity line. This resulted in the delay in execution of the work. Based on the request made by those consumers, a revised estimate had to be prepared on the newly suggested route and based on the cost data of 1999-2000, the estimate came to Rs.31, 86, 986/-. The Board would point out that clause 2 of minimum guarantee agreement stipulates that the minimum guarantors are liable to pay the actual cost of work including 10% establishment charges for a period of 10 years or such other period as the Board may fix, and therefore consequent to completion of the work, in accordance with the revised estimate, the minimum guarantors are liable to pay a monthly amount of Rs.204.29 instead of Rs.38.05 as agreed earlier.