High Court Kerala High Court

Rajan Cashew Company vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 12 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
Rajan Cashew Company vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 12 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1305 of 2007()


1. RAJAN CASHEW COMPANY,REP.BY ITS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,REP.BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA STATE ELETICITY REGULATORY

3. THE ASST.EXECUUTIVE ENGINEER,MAJOR SECTI

                For Petitioner  :SMT.S.KARTHIKA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :12/06/2007

 O R D E R
                     H.L. DATTU, C.J. &  K.T. SANKARAN, J.

                          ...................................................................................

                                    W.A. No.   1305   OF  2007

                 ...................................................................................

                                 Dated this the  12th June, 2007




                                           J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.:

Questioning the correctness or otherwise of the judgment

delivered by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 25066 of 2006

dated 19th March 2007, the petitioner in the Writ Petition has filed this

Appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri M.R. Anison would

submit that the learned single Judge, without quashing Ext.P3 issued by

the respondents, ought not to have directed the second respondent to re-

hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the

applicability or otherwise of LT-IV tariff instead of LT-VII(A) tariff.

3. In our view, the apprehension of the petitioner is

misconceived. The learned single Judge, after noticing that an order has

been passed by the respondents without complying with the orders and

directions issued by this court, has stated that the petitioner is not bound

by the orders passed by the respondents by Ext.P3. That only means

that the learned single Judge has prevented the authorities from

W.A. No. 1305 OF 2007

2

enforcing Ext.P3 order against the petitioner.

4. In that view of the matter, we do not see any error in the

impugned judgment. Therefore, no interference is called for in this Writ

Appeal.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU,

CHIEF JUSTICE.

K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk