IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31673 of 2006(U)
1. P. SANKARA NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 31673 OF 2006 (U)
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims that he is an agriculturist, who was availing
of power supply under LT V tariff. He is claiming the benefit of
Exts.P1 to P3 orders issued by the 4th respondent extending the
benefit of free supply of energy to paddy cultivators and also
other cultivators having land upto to 2 hectares. According to the
petitioner, immediately on the issuance of the scheme, way back
in 1997 itself, being eligible for the benefit, his mother had
applied for free supply of energy. His mother’s eligibility was
accepted and the benefit of the scheme was also extended to her.
Petitioner submits that on that basis, they were not being issued
any invoice, but however, he was issued Ext.P4 dated 9/9/06
demanding an amount of Rs.5,994.05 together with interest of
Rs.2,474 for the period April 1999 to December 2006. It is
stated that for non payment of the aforesaid amount, supply was
disconnected. That led the petitioner to file this writ petition
praying for a declaration that he is entitled to be exempted from
payment of electricity charges for LT V connection and also for a
WPC 31673/06
:2 :
direction to the respondents to reconnect the power supply.
2. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Ammini Gopalakrishnan v. State of
Kerala (2002(3) KLT 553), which according to the petitioner dealt
with a case identical in all respects.
3. Learned Government Pleader referred me to the
counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. According to the 3rd
respondent, although going by the extent of land held by the
petitioner, the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of the scheme,
still as the 3rd respondent had not received any application from
the petitioner, he was not extended the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3
referred to above.
4. Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board referred me
to Section 65 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and submits that
although the consumer had paid the energy charges till March
1999, default was committed from April 1999 and it was therefore
that Ext.P4 invoice was issued.
5. Admittedly, Exts.P1 to P3 reflects the policy decision
of the Government, providing for free supply of energy to
agriculturists cultivating paddy, without any limit to its extent.
WPC 31673/06
:3 :
The scheme also provides for free supply of energy to
agriculturists engaged in other cultivations and having
agricultural land upto an extent of 2 hectares. Ext.P3
Government order dated 4/2/99 is a consolidated one which
shows that the Agricultural Officers are required to submit the list
of eligible persons and they are also to make payment of the
energy charges to the electricity board and it is on that basis, the
scheme is to be implemented.
6. Counter affidavit filed by the Government would show
that though they accept the eligibility of the petitioner, their only
complaint is that no application has been received from the
petitioner. Although the petitioner contends that his mother had
submitted an application way back in 1997 itself, nothing has
been placed on record to substantiate this contention.
7. Having regard to the fact that the Government have
accepted the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of the
scheme and also in the light of the law laid down by this Court in
the judgment referred to by the counsel for the petitioner where
also liberty was given to the petitioners therein to make
applications claiming the benefit of the scheme, I dispose of this
WPC 31673/06
:4 :
writ petition with the following directions.
(1) That it will be open to the petitioner to make an
application to the 3rd respondent along with all other documents,
claiming the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3 schemes referred to above.
(2) It is directed that if such an application with necessary
documents is received from the petitioner as above, within 4
weeks thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall inspect the agricultural
land of the petitioner and assess his eligibility for the benefit of
Exts.P1 to P3.
(3) On such assessment, if the 3rd respondent finds that
the petitioner is eligible, the 3rd respondent shall immediately
take steps for extending the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3 schemes to
the petitioner without any further delay in this matter.
(4) In so far as the liability as per Ext.P4 is concerned,
counsel for the respondent Board insisted that the amount should
be paid by the petitioner while the petitioner contended that it
was accepting his eligibility for the benefit of the scheme that bills
were not raised since April, 1999.
(5) Irrespective of the controversy, it is directed that if the
petitioner is found to be eligible for the benefit of the scheme,
WPC 31673/06
:5 :
necessarily the benefit of the scheme should enure to the
petitioner from the date from which the 3rd respondent finds the
petitioner eligible for the same.
(6) Therefore, I leave it open to the 3rd respondent to
assess the effective date from which the petitioner is eligible for
the benefit of the scheme and it is directed that from that date
onwards the petitioner will be eligible for the benefit of the
scheme and it is for the petitioner to discharge the liability for the
previous period, if any.
(7) It is directed that in case the 3rd respondent certifies
the eligibility of the petitioner, on the petitioner complying with
the other procedural requirements, supply to his premises will be
reconnected.
(8) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before
the 3rd respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp