JOSEPH M KALLIVAYALIL MANAGING DIRECTOR GLEN ROACK RUBBER PRODUCTS PVT LTD Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a high tension consumer [HT consumer], impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which interfered with the directions of the State Electricity Ombudsman as seen at Ext.P4. On facts it is to be noticed that the appellant applied for an electricity connection and obtained it on 25.06.2008 for carrying on an industry. The appellant had been using electricity from that date. However, the appellant's contention is that there were new machinery erected in the site and since trial run was going on in the initial months, there was no production and the consequential consumption of power was negligible. Production commenced, according to the appellant, only on March, 2008.

(2.) Immediately after the appellant commenced production, Ext.P1 order was passed in the wake of power-cut imposed in the State. Ext.P1 devised a formula by which a quota will be fixed for HT consumers. The power cut at the initial stage was up to 25% and then up to 20%. By the quota fixed in the case of the appellant, the appellant was entitled to only 24120 units at the time when the power cut was 25% and 25728 when the power cut was 20%. The appellant was aggrieved by the fixation, especially since the base period as taken in Ext.P1 would prejudice the appellant in so far as the appellant having commenced active use of electricity only by the end of June, 2007 and started commercial production from March, 2008.

(3.) The appellant filed an application before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, in which by Ext.P3 the appellant was directed to approach the Board. The appellant approached the Board with a fresh application, but also filed a representation from Ext.P3 before the State Electricity Ombudsman. The State Electricity Ombudsman issued some directions, by which the Board was aggrieved with. The State Electricity Ombudsman found after looking at the consumption pattern of the appellant that the actual production commenced only from November, 2007. Hence, the proposal made by the Deputy Chief Engineer taking the average consumption from November, 2007 to June, 2008 was approved. The Board filed a writ petition against the order of the Ombudsman. The learned Single Judge found that the Ombudsman was not justified in interfering with the decision taken by the Board, especially by taking a base period quite different from that provided in Ext.P1. The order of the Ombudsman was set aside.