Abad Builders (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/1ST AGRAHAYANA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 18726 of 2011 (M)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **ABAD BUILDERS (P) LTD., ABAD PLAZA, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 035 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SMT.T.P.LEKSHMI VARMA SRI.V.VINAY** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,** ## **VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, KPFC BHAVAN, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.** **R1 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM,SENIOR ADVOCATE, SC, KSEB R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC,K.S.E.B. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JAMES,SC,KSEB REGULATORY COMMN. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SC,KSERC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-11-2012 ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 20515 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.18726/2011 M** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/09/2009 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, TRIPUNITHURA, DEMANDING A SUM OF RS.80,70,000/- AS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES.** - **P2: COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER (FM) NO.692/2010(DPC II/AE/ESTIMATE. O2/2010) DTD. 15/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 11/11/2009 FOR RS.80,70,000/- ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P4: COPY OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY LETTER NO.TCK/96/DBL/PA/10-11/436 DTD.9/07/2010.** - **P5: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DTD. 21/02/2011.** - **P6: COPY OF LETTER NO.DB GENERAL/10-11/298 DTD. 23/2/2011 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, TRIPUNITHURA.** - **P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.NO.13 DTD. 16/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** **---------------------------** **W.P.(C) Nos.18726, 20515, 21491, 22098, 22781, 26697, 27480, 27511, 27518, 27543, 27549, 27550, 27586, 28504, 30911, 33942, 33945 of 2011** **--------------------------** **Dated this the 22[nd] day of November, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the levy of transmission side development charges on per KVA basis by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the KSEB” for short). They contend that the levy of any charge by a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, can only be with the approval of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission” for short) and that the levy of transmission side development charges from consumers like them has not been permitted by the Commission. Since a common issue arises in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. ## **W.P.(C)No.18726 of 2011** : 2. The petitioner herein is a private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in developing **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:2:- residential, hospitality and commercial buildings. As a part of its business activity, the petitioner had promoted and constructed a commercial and office building at Maradu in Ernakulam known as “Nucleus Mall”. After the construction of the building was completed, the petitioner applied for electricity connection to the said building. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Sub Division, Tripunithura thereupon sent Ext.P1 letter dated 10.9.2009 to the Director of the petitioner company, informing him that the petitioner’s application for power allocation can be considered only on payment of the sum of Rs.80,70,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Maradu and payable at State Bank of Travancore, Tripunithura. In that letter, it was mentioned that the 110 KV sub-station at Vytilla is in a fully loaded condition and therefore, power allocation from the existing sub station is restricted. It was further stated that a new 110KV sub-station at Vytilla is under construction and therefore, the petitioner’s application for power allocation for the installation of 1000 KVA transformer for LT and HT service connection can be considered only on payment of pro-rata development charges at the rate of Rs.2,690/- per KVA, aggregating to Rs.80,70,000/-. In addition to **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:3:- the payment demanded in Ext.P1, the petitioner was called upon to remit the cost of drawing underground cable for a length of 3420 metres, installation of one 1000 KVA transformer and a separate 11 KV feeder from the new sub-station at Vytilla to the petitioner’s building, estimated at Rs.1,64,00,000/- and the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount together with 10% of the said amount as supervision charges as per Ext.P3 order dated 15.3.2010 issued by the KSEB. The petitioner remitted the sum of Rs.1,64,00,000/- and the supervision charges in terms of Ext.P3 order without protest. Though the petitioner objected to the demand for payment of the sum of Rs.80,70,000/-, it was forced to pay the said amount on account of the necessity to obtain power supply to the building. The petitioner remitted the sum of Rs.80,70,000/- on 11.11.2009. Later, on coming to know that the pro-rata amount to be paid for up-gradation of the substation was reduced to Rs.1,350/- per KVA in the case of HT consumers, the Managing Director of the petitioner sent Ext.P5 letter dated 21.2.2011 to the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Maradu requesting him to refund the excess amount of Rs.40,50,000/paid towards development charges or to adjust it against further payments required to be made for the project at Maradu. Such a **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:4:- letter was sent in the light of Ext.P4 letter dated 9.7.2010 sent by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Transmission Circle, Kalamassery to the Executive Engineers of the Transmission Divisions at Kalamassery, Ernakulam and Brahmapuram wherein it was stated that in the case of HT applicants seeking supply of power to their premises, transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs.1,350/- per KVA should be remitted with effect from 1.6.2010. Upon receipt of Ext.P5 letter, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Tripunithura sent Ext.P6 letter dated 23.2.2011 to the Managing Director of the petitioner stating that infrastructure development charge for the transmission part was collected from the petitioner at the rate prevailing during the relevant time and therefore his request for adjusting or refunding the amount, based on the reduction in rate with effect from 1.6.2010 cannot be accepted. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 11.7.2011 challenging Ext.P1 letter and Ext.P2 order to the extent they stipulate for payment of transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs.2,690/- per KVA. The petitioner has in W.P.(C)No.18726 of 2011 prayed for the following reliefs: _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other_ **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:5:- _appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P1 and to quash Exhibit P2._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code, 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare that demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to act strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Supply Code and KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P7 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sum of Rs.80,70,000/(Rs.Eighty lakhs and seventy thousand only) illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner together with commercial rate of interest of the period from 11.11.2009 till date of repayment.”_ 3. The main contention in the writ petition is that the demand in Exts.P1 and P2 for transmission side development charges is contrary to the statutory provisions and is illegal. It is contended that the collection of transmission side development charges on per KVA basis does not have the sanction or authority of law and that such development charges have been collected **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:6:- illegally. Relying on Ext.P7 order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission on a petition filed by the KSEB, it is contended that the KSEB cannot collect transmission side development charges from customers like the petitioner. It is contended that the KSEB had in the application filed by it before the Commission sought permission to collect transmission side development charges towards providing the electricity plant, normally understood as transformation capacity with the necessary switchgear for providing supply to an applicant wherever such works are necessary and that by Ext.P7 order, the Commission held that the cost of equipment required for development of the system is to be borne by the licensee, that such expenditure incurred is recovered by way of interest and depreciation included in the Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) approved by the Commission and that the capital works include all the development works in generation, transmission and distribution. It is contended that the Commission has in Ext.P7 order held that the distribution licensee is entitled to charge only the expenses incurred for providing supply specifically to that consumer as approved by the Commission and therefore, the request of the KSEB to permit it to recover a part of the advance requirement for supply on demand ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:7:- from all prospective LT, HT and EHT consumers cannot be allowed. The petitioner contends that in the light of Ext.P7 order which was passed on 16.11.2009, the KSEB acted illegally in issuing Ext.P2 order dated 15.3.2010 and in collecting the sum of Rs.80,70,000/- from the petitioner towards transmission side development charges. ## **W.P.(C)No.20515 of 2011** : 4. The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. As a part of its business activity the petitioner has constructed an apartment building called “Aquarious Flat” at Thottumugam in Aluva. After the construction of the building was completed, the petitioner applied for supply of power to the said building and thereupon, the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Aluva sent Ext.P1 letter dated 12.2.2008 calling upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.17,25,870/- for giving electricity supply to the apartment building. It is stated that later, by Ext.P2 letter dated 12.2.2009, the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Sub Division, Aluva directed payment of the sum of Rs.4,25,870/- for supply of power under the OYEC scheme and also called upon the petitioner to deposit transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs.2,600/- per KVA along ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:8:- with the sum of Rs.4,25,870/-. It is stated that though the petitioner protested against the levy of Rs.13,00,000/- towards transmission side development charges, on account of the necessity to obtain the power supply, the petitioner remitted the said amount along with the sum of Rs.4,25,870/- demanded in Exts.P1 and P2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the levy of the sum of Rs.13,00,000/- towards transmission side development charges and seeks the following reliefs: - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P2 and to quash Exhibit P2._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code, 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to act strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Supply Code and KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent to investigate the impugned actions of the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P4 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to_ **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:9:- _forthwith refund the sum of Rs.13,00,000/illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner together with commercial rate of interest of the period from 18.2.2009 till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised, and reliance is placed on the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4 herein. ## **W.P.(C)No.21491 of 2011** : 5. The petitioner herein is the proprietor of a granite crushing unit and a low tension industrial consumer of the KSEB. For the purpose of expanding his business activity, the petitioner applied for additional connected load to the extent of 280 KVA to his factory premises. By Ext.P2 letter dated 26.7.2011, the Assistant Executive Engineer called upon the petitioner to remit, in addition to the cost of materials required for providing supply to the premises, the sum of Rs.3,78,000/- towards transmission side development charges, at the rate of Rs.1,350/- per KVA for the additional connected load of 280KVA. Though the petitioner objected to the demand for payment of the sum of Rs.3,78,000/towards transmission side development charges contained in Ext.P2 letter dated 26.7.2011, on account of the necessity to ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:10:- obtain power supply, he remitted the said amount. The instant writ petition was thereafter filed on 5.8.2011 challenging Ext.P2 letter to the extent it directs payment of transmission side development charges and seeking the following reliefs: - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P2 and to quash Exhibit P1 and P2 to the extent of demand for Development Charges._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code, 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to act strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Supply Code and KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 3[rd] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P3 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction commanding the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to process the application for additional load as applied for by the petitioner without insisting on the payment of any Development Charges, and to forthwith give additional load as applied for.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:11:- (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised, and reliance is placed on the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3 herein. ## **W.P.(C)No.22098 of 2011** : 6. The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing TMT Steel Bars in its factory situate in the Industrial Development Area at Angamaly. For the purpose of establishing a new industrial unit in the premises, the petitioner applied for electricity connection with a connected load of 1800 KVA. By Ext.P3 letter dated 13.7.2011, the Deputy Chief Engineer, KESB, Electrical Circle, Perumbavoor informed the Managing Director of the petitioner that power to the extent of 1800 KVA can be given after remitting the sum of Rs.62,12,000/towards transmission side development charges in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer, KESB, Transmission Circle, Thrissur. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 11.8.2011 challenging Ext.P3 and seeking the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P2 and to quash Exhibit P2._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting in any_ -:12:- ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** _manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code, 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to act strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Supply Code and KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent to investigate the impugned actions of the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P4 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sum of Rs.13,00,000/illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner together with commercial rate of interest of the period from 18.2.2009 till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P5. ## **W.P.(C)No.22781 of 2011** : 7. The petitioner herein is a private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of developing residential and commercial buildings. The petitioner had as part of its business activity constructed an apartment **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:13:- building known as “RDS Rhythm” at Padamughal in Kakkanad. On completion of the construction, the petitioner applied for electricity connection to the said building by submitting Ext.P1 application dated 26.12.2008. Upon receipt of that application, the Executive engineer, KESB, Transmission Division, H.M.T. Colony P.O., Kalamassery, sent Ext.P2 letter dated 7.5.2009 calling upon the petitioner to remit transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs.2,360/- per KVA for the requested connected load of 630 KVA. It is stated that as the construction of the building had been completed and the apartments had to be delivered to the purchasers, the petitioner was constrained to pay the said amount and it was paid on 29.6.2009 by Ext.P3 demand draft. Later, after the Commission declined the request made by the KSEB for permission to collect transmission side development charges from LT, HT and EHT consumers by Ext.P6 order dated 16.11.2009, the instant writ petition was filed on 20.8.2011 challenging Ext.P2 and seeking the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P2 and to quash Exhibit P2 demand for Development Charges on the Transmission side._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as_ **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:14:- _contained in the Supply Code, 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to act strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Supply Code and KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 5[th] respondent to investigate the impugned actions of the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P6 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith refund the sum of Rs.14,86,800/illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner together with commercial rate of interest of the period from 29.6.2009 till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised. ## **W.P.(C)No.26697 of 2011** : 8. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of ply-wood and veneers. With a view to meet the additional power requirement in the industrial unit run by the firm, the petitioner applied for additional supply of power by submitting Ext.P1 application dated 13.1.2011. Upon ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:15:- receipt of Ext.P1 application, the second respondent addressed the Executive Engineer, KESB, Transmission Division, Kothamangalam and he in turn sent Ext.P2 letter dated 16.2.2001 to the Assistant Engineer, KESB, Electrical Section, Vazhakkulam calling upon him to collect transmission side development charges from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1350/- per KVA for the additional power requirement. The petitioner accordingly remitted the sum of Rs.97,200/- towards transmission side development charges for the additional power requirement on 19.4.2011. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 10.10.2011, challenging the demand made in Ext.P2 for transmission side development charges and seeking the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P2 and to quash Exhibit P2._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P8 and to quash Exhibit P8 to the extent that it contemplates collection of advance amounts, retaining it interest free_ **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:16:- _and the condition of non-refund on withdrawal of application._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to act strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Supply Code and KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 4[th] respondent to investigate and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P5 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.7. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges and interest free advance, together with commercial rate of interest of the period from their respective dates of payment till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to the those raised in W.P.(C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P5. ## **W.P.(C)No.27480 of 2011** ## : 9. The petitioner is the Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the construction and development of residential apartments. The petitioner had applied for electricity connection to two apartment buildings at ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:17:- Maradu. Upon receipt of the said application the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Sub Division, Tripunithura, sent Ext.P1 letter dated 25.9.2009 calling upon the petitioner to remit Rs.8,47,350/- towards transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs.2690 per KVA in respect of apartment building known as “Asset Kottaram”. The petitioner remitted the said amount on 1.10.2009. Likewise, in respect of the apartment building known as “Asset Dew” the petitioner was called upon to remit the sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards transmission side development charges as per Ext.P5 letter dated 4.11.2010. The said amount was also remitted. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 17.10.2011, challenging the demand for transmission side development charges and seeking the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibits P1 and P5 and to quash Exhibits P1 and P5._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount, in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. or as specifically sanctioned by the 5[th] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the various regulations, rules, terms and_ ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:18:- _conditions._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 5[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P6 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges together with commercial rate of interest for the period from their respective dates of payment till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also contentions similar to those raised in W.P.(C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P6. ## **W.P.(C)No.27511 of 2011** : 10. The petitioner is the Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the construction and development of residential apartments. With a view to obtain electricity connection for the residential apartment building known as “Asset Signature” at Kazhakoottam in Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner applied for electricity connection to the fourth ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:19:- respondent by submitting an application dated 28.8.2010. Upon receipt of that application the Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Circle (Urban), Trivandrum sent Ext.P1 letter dated 29.11.2010 calling upon the petitioner to remit Rs.22.25 lakhs towards transmission side development charges. The petitioner remitted the said amount on 1.12.2009. In the instant writ petition filed on 17.10.2011, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 and seeks the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P1 and to quash Exhibit P1._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount, in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. or as specifically sanctioned by the 5[th] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the various regulations, rules, terms and conditions._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 5[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P5 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st]_ **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:20:- _respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges together with commercial rate of interest for the period from their respective dates of payment till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P5. ## **W.P.(C)No.27518 of 2011** : 11. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the construction and development of residential apartments. With a view to obtain electricity connection for the residential apartment building known as “Asset Periyar Scape” at Aluva, the petitioner applied for electricity connection by submitting an application to the third respondent. Upon receipt of that application the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Sub Division, Aluva issued Ext.P1 order dated 16.9.2009 calling upon the petitioner inter alia to deposit transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs,2600/- per KVA. The petitioner accordingly remitted, in addition to other amounts, the sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards transmission side development charges on 22.9.2009. In the -:21:- ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** instant writ petition filed on 17.10.2011, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1, to the extent it demands payment of transmission side development charges and seeks the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P1 and to quash Exhibit P1 to the extent that per KVA transmission deposit is demanded._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount, in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. or as specifically sanctioned by the 4[th] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the various regulations, rules, terms and conditions._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of transmission deposit as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 4[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P3 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as transmission deposit, together with commercial rate of interest for the period from their respective dates of payment till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:22:- (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P3. ## **W.P.(C)No.27543 of 2011** : 12. The petitioner herein is the Managing Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the construction and development of residential apartments. With a view to obtain electricity connection for the residential apartment building known as “Asset City Bay” at Tripunithura, the petitioner applied for electricity connection by submitting an application to the third respondent. Upon receipt of that application the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Tripunithura, issued Ext.P1 letter dated 17.11.2009 calling upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.6,72,500/- towards transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs,2690/per KVA. The petitioner accordingly remitted the said amount on 19.11.2009. In the instant writ petition filed on 17.10.2011, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1, to the extent it demands payment of transmission side development charges and seeks the following reliefs:- > _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including_ ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** ## -:23:- _Exhibit P1 and to quash Exhibit P1._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount, in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. or as specifically sanctioned by the 4[th] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the various regulations, rules, terms and conditions._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 4[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P5 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges, together with commercial rate of interest for the period from their respective dates of payment till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P5. ## **W.P.(C)No.27549 of 2011** : 13. The petitioner herein is the Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:24:- construction and development of residential apartments. With a view to obtain electricity connection for the residential apartment building known as “Asset Life Space” at Irumbanam, the petitioner applied for electricity connection by submitting an application to the third respondent. Upon receipt of that application the third respondent sent Ext.P1 letter dated 13.8.2009 calling upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.7,43,400/- towards transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs,2360/- per KVA. The petitioner accordingly remitted the said amount on 9.9.2009 and thereupon electricity connection was provided to the said residential apartment. In the instant writ petition filed on 17.10.2011, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 and seeks the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P1 and to quash Exhibit P1._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount, in any manner, contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, or as specifically sanctioned by the 4[th] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the various regulations, rules, terms and conditions._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of_ ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** ## -:25:- _development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 4[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P5 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges, together with commercial rate of interest for the period from their respective dates of payment till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P5. ## **W.P.(C)No.27550 of 2011** : 14. The petitioner herein is the Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the construction and development of residential apartments. With a view to obtain electricity connection for the residential apartment building known as “Asset E Valley” at Kakkanad, the petitioner applied for electricity connection by submitting an application to the second respondent. Upon receipt of that application the second respondent sent Ext.P1 letter dated 7.12.2009 calling upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.9,44,000/- towards ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:26:- transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs,2360/per KVA. The petitioner accordingly remitted the said amount on 18.12.2009 and thereupon electricity connection was provided to the petitioner's residential apartment. In the instant writ petition filed on 17.10.2011, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 and seeks the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P1 and to quash Exhibit P1._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount, in any manner, contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, or as specifically sanctioned by the 3[rd] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the various regulations, rules, terms and conditions._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 3[rd] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P5 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges, together with commercial rate of interest for the period from their respective dates of_ **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:27:- ## _payment till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P5. **W.P.(C)No.27586 of 2011** : 15. The petitioner herein is the Managing Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the construction and development of residential apartments. With a view to obtain electricity connection for the residential apartment buildings known as “Asset Cyber/Silicon Heights” and “Asset Refresh” both at Kakkanad, the petitioner applied for electricity connection by submitting an application to the second respondent. Upon receipt of that application the second respondent sent Ext.P1 letter dated 5.8.2009 calling upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.11,96,500/- towards transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs,2393/per KVA in respect of the apartment building known as “Asset Cyber/Silicon Heights” and Ext.P3 letter dated 20.1.2010 demanding payment of Rs.3,77,600/- towards transmission side development charges in respect of the apartment building known as “Asset Refresh”. The petitioner accordingly remitted the said ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:28:- amounts and thereupon, electricity connection was provided to the said residential apartments. In the instant writ petition filed on 17.10.2011, the petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P3 and seeks the following reliefs:- - _“3.1. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibits P1 and P3 and to quash Exhibits P1 and P3._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount, in any manner, contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, or as specifically sanctioned by the 3[rd] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the various regulations, rules, terms and conditions._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 3[rd] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for non-compliance of the Exhibit P5 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges, together with commercial rate of interest for the period from their respective dates of payment till date of repayment.”_ In the instant case also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P. **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:29:- (C)No.18726 of 2011 are raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P5. ## **W.P.(C)No.28504 of 2011** : 16. The petitioner herein is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioner society, promoted by officers of the Federal Bank is involved in the construction of residential houses for its members. The petitioner society had, as a part of its business activity, constructed a residential apartment building at Karayamparambu near Angamaly. With a view to obtain electricity connection to the said residential apartment building, the petitioner applied for electricity connection by submitting an application to the second respondent. Upon receipt of that application the second respondent orally informed the petitioner that the petitioner will have to remit the sum of Rs.79.89 lakhs as transmission side development charges calculated on per KVA basis. It is stated that in addition to the said amount the petitioner was also called upon to remit the sum of Rs.20,000/- as interest free advance on the strength of Ext.P8 order dated 24.2.2010 issued by the KSEB. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the demand for payment of transmission side development charges and also the ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:30:- demand based on Ext.P8 order for deposit of the sum of Rs.20,000/-. As regards the demand for payment of transmission side development charges the very same contentions as are raised in W.P.(C).No.18726 of 2011 are raised. With reference to the demand for payment of the interest free deposit of Rs.20,000/-, it is contended that the KSEB cannot demand and collect any amount by way of application fee over and above the application fee stipulated in regulation 5(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 framed and issued by the Commission. In this writ petition, besides seeking a direction to the respondents to process Ext.P2 application for power connection without insisting on payment of transmission development charges, the petitioner also challenges Ext.P8 order to the extent it relates to the demand for interest free deposit of Rs.20,000/-. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- - _“3.1.To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, and to command respondents 1 to 3 to process Ext.P2 application for power connection without insisting on payment of illegal per KVA transmission development charges._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting to any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to_ -:31:- ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** _pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P8 and to quash Exhibit P8 to the extent that it contemplates collection of advance amounts, retaining it interest free and the condition of non-refund on withdrawal of application.._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to act strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Supply Code and KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus, or such other order or direction, commanding the 4[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for noncompliance of the Exhibit P5 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.7. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges, together with commercial rate of interest for the period from the date of Ext.P4 till date of repayment.”_ ## **W.P.(C)No.30911 of 2011** : 17. The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of manufacturing ice-cream. With a view to expand its business activities, the petitioner applied for additional connected supply of ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:32:- electricity by submitting Ext.P1 application dated 22.2.2011 to the second respondent. When the application for electricity connection was submitted, in addition to the application fee stipulated in regulation 5(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, the second respondent demanded payment of the sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of interest free deposit relying on Ext.P9 order dated 24.2.2010. Later, by Ext.P6 letter dated 8.11.2011 the Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Circle, Perumbavoor, called upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.3,63,000/towards transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs.2420/- per KVA for the additional contract demand of 150 KVA. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 19.11.2011 challenging the levy of interest fee deposit of Rs.10,000/- based on Ext.P9 order and the demand for payment of transmission side development charges to the tune of Rs.3,63,000/- in Ext.P6 letter. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- > _“3.1.To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, and to command respondents 1 to 3 to process Ext.P1 application for enhancement of connected load without insisting on payment of illegal per KVA transmission development charges._ ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** ## -:33:- - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting to any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005._ - _3.3. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand and collection of development charges as illegal._ - _3.4. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Exhibit P9 and to quash Exhibit P9 to the extent that it contemplates collection of advance amounts, retaining it interest free and the condition of non-refund on withdrawal of application._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to act strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Supply Code and KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus, or such other order or direction, commanding the 4[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for noncompliance of the Exhibit P7 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.7. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sums of money illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as development charges, together with commercial rate of interest for the period from the date of Ext.P2 till date of repayment.”_ Herein also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P.(C) Nos.18726 and 28504 of 2011 are raised. **W.P.(C)No.33942 of 2011:** **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:34:- 18. The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the construction and development of residential apartments and other buildings. The petitioner had, as a part of its business activity, constructed a residential apartment known as “Jewel Keningston” at Rajagiri Valley, Kakkanad. The petitioner thereafter applied for electricity connection to the said apartment building. When the said application was submitted, in addition to the application fee of Rs.1,000/- stipulated in regulation 5(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, the fourth respondent demanded payment of the sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of interest free deposit relying on Ext.P5 order dated 24.2.2010. Later, the Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Division, Tripunithura, sent Ext.P2 letter dated 16.9.2011 calling upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.9,44,000/- towards transmission side development charges for the purpose of providing electricity supply to the petitioner's apartment. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 19.12.2011 challenging the levy of interest free deposit of Rs.10,000/- and the demand for payment of transmission side development charges. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:35:- - _“3.1.To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and inclusive of Ext.P2 and P2A and to quash Ext.P2 and P2A to the extent that Ext.P2A authorises collection of cost of development of sub station from new consumers._ - _3.2. To issue a writ of certiorari, or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case up to and including Ext.P5 and to quash Ext.P5 to the extent that Ext.P5 authorises collection of non-refundable interest free advance from applicants for power at rates in excess of those stipulated by the 5[th] respondent._ - _3.3. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, or as specifically sanctioned by the 5[th] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the regulations, rules, terms and conditions framed under the Electricity Act, 2003._ - _3.4. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand of per KVA Transmission side development charges as illegal._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus, or such other order or direction, commanding the 5[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for noncompliance of the Exhibit P3 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sum of Rs.10,000/- illegally demanded and collected from the petitioner as interest free nonrefundable advance, together with commercial_ **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:36:- _rate of interest for the period from the date of payment by the petitioner (14.7.2011) till date of repayment._ - _3.7. Pending the adjudication of the case to direct respondents 1 to 4 to provide electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner based on Ext.P1 application without insisting on the petitioner paying any amount as per KVA transmission side Development Charges.”_ Herein also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P.(C) Nos.18726 and 28504 of 2011 are raised. ## **W.P.(C)No.33945 of 2011:** 19. The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the construction and development of residential apartments and other buildings. With a view to obtain electricity connection for the residential apartment building known as “Jewel Riverwood” at Aluva, the petitioner applied for electricity connection by submitting Ext.P1 application dated 7.12.2010 to the fourth respondent. Upon receipt of the said application the fourth respondent sent Ext.P2 letter dated 9.8.2011 calling upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.13,09,220/- towards transmission side development charges at the rate of Rs.2450/- per KVA, besides other amounts. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 19.12.2011 challenging Ext.P2 and seeking the following reliefs:- ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:37:- - _“3.1.To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case upto and including Ext.P2 and to quash Ext.P2 to the extent that Ext.P2 demands the sum of Rs.13,09,220/- as transmission side development charges on per KVA basis._ - _3.2. To prohibit the respondents from acting or demanding and collecting any amount in any manner contrary to statutory provisions as contained in the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, or as specifically sanctioned by the 5[th] respondent under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the regulations, rules, terms and conditions framed under the Electricity Act, 2003._ - _3.4. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as development charges and also to declare the demand of per KVA Transmission side development charges as illegal._ - _3.5. To issue a writ of mandamus, or such other order or direction, commanding the 5[th] respondent to investigate the 1[st] respondent and to punish the 1[st] respondent for noncompliance of the Exhibit P3 order and the provisions of the Supply Code and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply._ - _3.6. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forthwith refund the sum of Rs.10,000/- illegally demanded and collected together with Ext.P1 from the petitioner as interest free non-refundable advance, together with commercial rate of interest for the period from the date of payment by the petitioner (7.12.2010) till date of repayment._ - _3.7. Pending the adjudication of the case to direct respondents 1 to 4 to provide electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner based on Ext.P1 application without insisting on the petitioner paying any amount, including_ -:38:- ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** _Rs.13,09,222/- as per KVA transmission side Development Charges.”_ Herein also, contentions similar to those raised in W.P.(C) No.18726 of 2011 have been raised and a copy of the order dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Commission is produced as Ext.P5.. 20. In these writ petitions, wherever electricity supply had not been given, interim orders have been passed directing the competent authority to process the application for electricity supply and to give electricity connection without insisting on payment of transmission side development charges. Though the said orders were challenged in appeal, the Division Bench did not interfere with the said orders, but only directed the applicants who are yet to get electricity connection to file an undertaking before the KSEB that they will pay the transmission side development charges in the event of the writ petitions being dismissed. 21. An Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board at Kochi has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 19.10.2011 on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C).No.26697 of 2011. In paragraph 3 thereof it is contended that the development charges mentioned in Ext.P5 order passed by the Commission is different from the development charges mentioned **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:39:- in Ext.P2 order produced in the said writ petition. In paragraph 5 thereof, relying on sub-section (2) of section 43 and section 46 of the Act and regulations 7 and 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 as also regulations 4 and 5 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, it is contended that the KSEB can collect the expenses incurred by it for providing electricity connection to its consumers. In paragraph 7 thereof it is contend that the development charges claimed from the petitioner is intended to meet the actual expenses and requirements for providing additional power allocation to the petitioner and that the petitioner cannot contend that additional power allocation should be provided at the expense of 78 lakh consumers in the State by ignoring the statutory provisions contained in sections 43 and 45 of the Act, regulations 7 and 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and regulations 4 and 5 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. In paragraph 8 thereof, relying on Ext.R1(a) order dated 23.5.2011 issued by the Commission it is contended that the Commission has approved the methodology for estimating the cost of providing HT/EHT connection and for executing transmission works in favour of beneficiaries. In paragraph 10 it **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:40:- is contended that pursuant to Ext.P2 communication the petitioner voluntarily and willingly remitted Rs.97,200/- even without any demand to that effect. It is further contended that the existing connected load of the petitioner's establishment is 47KW, that he has applied for additional power allocation to the tune of 61KW, that the total load would come to 108KW and that supply to the petitioner's establishment can be provided only after drawing a 11 KV line for 14 metres and installing a 160 KVA transformer, that the estimated cost of the said works is Rs.3,48,316/- and that the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- received from the petitioner at the time of accepting the application was adjusted in the estimate amount and only the balance amount would be demanded from the petitioner. 22. I heard Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.P.Santhalingam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the KSEB and Sri.Aneesh James, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended with reference to section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) that on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:41:- the KSEB, which is the licensee in the State of Kerala is bound to give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application and that in cases where such supply requires extension of distribution mains or commissioning of new sub-stations, it is for the licensee to supply electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the appropriate Commission, and that in section 43(2) of the Act it has been stipulated that it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises in respect of which power supply is sought and therefore, the demand for payment of transmission side development charges is without the sanction or authority of law. The learned counsel contended that under the statutory provisions, it is the duty of the licensee (in the instant case, the KSEB) to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electricity supply or electricity connection to the premises in respect of which power supply is sought and therefore, the demand for transmission side development charges is illegal. Referring to section 46 of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the power to recover expenditure is **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:42:- subject to the approval of the Commission, that the Commission has framed the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and therefore, the KSEB cannot, except in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, charge from a person requiring supply of electricity any expenses other than the expenses reasonably incurred by the KSEB in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. Referring to regulation 7 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that recovery of transmission side development charges is not contemplated therein and that the KSEB can only recover the expenses reasonably incurred by it for providing any electric line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply, meaning thereby that if any additional line is required to be drawn to the premises to which electricity supply is sought or a transformer is to be erected in such premises, the consumer will have to meet the expenses in that regard. Referring to regulation 30 the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that regulation 30 requires the KSEB to submit to the Commission for approval, the “Draft Terms and Conditions of Supply” in accordance with the Kerala Electricity ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:43:- Supply Code, 2005, and even under the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 thus framed, the KSEB cannot levy transmission side development charges. Referring to regulation 4 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 which is pari materia with regulation 7 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that except the right to collect the expenses reasonably incurred for providing any electric line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply, the levy and collection of transmission side development charges is not warranted by regulation 4 also. As regards the demand for payment of interest free deposit in terms of the KSEB order dated 24.2.2010 produced as Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.28504 of 2011, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Commission has not approved the same and therefore, the KSEB cannot insist that persons applying for electricity supply should, in addition to the application fee, remit the amount stipulated in paragraph 2 of the KSEB order dated 24.2.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a person applying for electricity supply need pay only the application fee stipulated in regulation 5 of the Kerala Electricity **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:44:- Supply Code, 2005, that under regulation 5 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 the non-refundable application fee is only Rs.50/- for Low Tension supply, Rs.1000/- for High Tension supply and Rs.5000/- for Extra High Tension Supply and that even in the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, the non-refundable application fee stipulated is identical and therefore, the KSEB cannot demand payment of interest free deposit as stipulated in paragraph 2 of the KSEB order dated 24.2.2010. The learned counsel also contended that the KSEB order dated 24.2.2010 does not have the approval of the Commission and therefore, on the terms of section 46 of the Act, the said demand is also illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the KSEB which levies interest at 12% per annum for belated payment of energy charges relying on regulation 23 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and regulation 36(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 is bound to refund to the petitioners, the amount collected by it from them by way of transmission side development charges/interest free deposit. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited my attention to Ext.P7 order produced in W.P.(C)No.18726 of 2011 whereby, the Commission **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:45:- dismissed the application filed by the KSEB for permission to recover a part of the advance requirement for providing supply on demand from all the prospective LT, HT and EHT consumers as development charges. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by the said order, the Commission held that it is the duty of the licensee to provide electric plant and extent electricity lines and poles to the premises of the consumer at its own cost to give supply of electricity to the consumer and that it can realise only the expenses reasonably incurred for any electric line or plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the transmission side development charges were levied and collected without the sanction or authority of law, the petitioners are entitled to refund of the amount collected from them together with interest. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Ext.R1(a) order dated 23.5.2009 produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the KSEB in W.P.(C) No.26697 of 2011 and submitted that the only instance where transmission side development charges can be levied from prospective consumers is where works involving the construction of electric plants and lines above 11 KV level is required for giving supply **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:46:- and therefore, in the instant cases, transmission side development charges could not have been levied. The learned counsel also submitted that even in such cases, the methodology for estimation of the cost of transmission side development charges is as set out in paragraph 5.1 of Ext.R1(a) order and not on per KVA basis and therefore, for that reason also, the levy and collection of transmission side development charges has to be held to be illegal. The learned counsel submitted that in **Consumer Online Foundation and Others v. Union of India and Others** [2011 (5) SCC 360] the Apex Court held that levy and collection of development fee is illegal for the reason that it was not sanctioned by the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority under section 22-A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, but declined to direct refund of the collections made earlier only on the ground that the passengers from whom the development fee had been collected cannot be identified or traced out, but have in the same judgment directed that the development fee collected be utilised for the purposes mentioned in clause (a) of section 22 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, that in the instant case, the persons from whom the transmission side development charges were collected are identifiable and therefore there is no reason why the **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:47:- transmission side development charges paid by many among the petitioners should not be refunded to them. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India** [(2011) 8 SCC 161], the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if the amount collected by way of transmission side development charges is not refunded to the applicants, the KSEB will be unjustly enriched and therefore for that reason also, the petitioners are entitled to obtain refund of the transmission side development charges paid by them. Referring to the letter dated 28.8.2009 sent by the Secretary-incharge of the Commission enclosing with it the estimate rates for distribution work (Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.26697 of 2009) the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Commission had in the letter which is referred to in the first page of Ext.P11 circular held that the development of infrastructure under generation, transmission, distribution has to be met from the capital expenditure provided in the A.R.R. and therefore for that reason also, the levy and collection of transmission side development charges is illegal. 23. Per contra, Sri.P.Santhalingam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the KSEB contended, relying on section 46 of the **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:48:- Act and regulations 7 and 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, that the KSEB is entitled to recover from a person requiring supply of electricity, any expense reasonably incurred by it in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply and therefore, the demand for transmission side development charges on per KVA basis from the petitioners is legal and proper. The learned Senior Advocate contended that Ext.P7 order of the Commission produced in W.P.(C) No.18726 of 2011 does not govern the case on hand, that what was contemplated in the application filed by the KSEB before the Commission which was rejected by Ext.P7 order was a proposal to introduce development charges for new connections in order to recover a part of the investment required for providing power on demand from Low Tension, High Tension and Extra High Tension consumers and therefore, no reliance can be placed on Ext.P7 order of the Commission to contend that levy and collection of transmission side development charges for the purpose of providing supply to the premises of the petitioners is illegal or improper. The learned Senior Advocate contended that, the first proviso to regulation 7(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 and the first proviso to regulation 4(1) of the Kerala State **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:49:- Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 empower the KSEB to recover the expenses incurred by it for giving supply and therefore, the petitioners cannot successfully challenge the levy and collection of transmission side development charges. Relying on regulation 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, more particularly, regulation 8(2), 8(3) and 8(4) thereof, the learned Senior Advocate contended that the demand for transmission side development charges can be sustained under the aforesaid provisions as well. 24. Sri.Aneesh James, learned counsel appearing for the Commission, contended with reference to section 42 of the Act that, it is the duty of every distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system in its area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. Referring to sub-section (2) of section 43 of the Act, learned counsel contended that, it is the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises in respect of which the supply of electricity is sought. Referring to section 46 of the Act, learned counsel contended that, the distribution licensee can recover the expenses reasonably **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:50:- incurred by it in providing any electric line or electrical plant only in accordance with the regulations framed by the Commission and therefore, the KSEB cannot unilaterally demand and collect transmission side development charges as it is not provided for in the regulations. Referring to section 16 of the Act, learned counsel for the Commission contended that, it is open to the Commission to specify any general or specific conditions which shall apply either to a licensee or class of licensees and such conditions shall be deemed to be conditions of such licence. Relying on regulation 19(3) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conditions of Licence for Existing Distribution Licensees) Regulations, 2006, learned counsel contended that, the distribution licensee can recover the charges only in accordance with the tariffs and charges approved by the Commission, that the demand for levy and collection of charges on the transmission side, was rejected by the Commission by Ext.P7 order, that it is in force even today and, therefore, in the absence of any stipulation in the regulations, the KSEB cannot recover development charges on the transmission side from the petitioners. Referring to regulation 21 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conditions of Licence for ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:51:- Existing Distribution Licences) Regulations, 2006, the learned counsel contended that, the distribution licensee has to prepare a perspective plan for 5 years, anticipating growth in load in the area of supply, for upgrading the distribution system, that based on the perspective plan, the KSEB has to prepare an annual plan for executing works to meet the requirement of growth in load and for upgrading the distribution system and that the annual plan thus prepared has to be submitted to the Commission every year along with ARR (Aggregate Revenue Requirement) & ERC (Expected Revenue from Charges) for the following financial year. The learned counsel for the Commission concluded by submitting that the KSEB, which is the distribution licensee in the State of Kerala and also generates and transmits electricity has a duty to upgrade the distribution system, and therefore, without the approval of the Commission, the KSEB could not have collected transmission side development charges from the petitioners. 25. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Sub-section (1) of section 42 of the Act stipulates that it shall be the duty of the distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:52:- and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. Thus, on the terms of sub-section (1) of section 42 of the Act, the KSEB has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system in its area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act stipulates that save as otherwise provided in the Act, every distribution licensee shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act however provides that where such supply requires extension of the distribution mains, or the commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the appropriate Commission. The effect of sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act is that the KSEB, which is a distribution licensee, has to give supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply and if such supply requires extension of the **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:53:- distribution mains or the commissioning of a new sub-station, to supply electricity to the premises in respect of which supply is sought immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the appropriate Commission. The Commission has, in regulation 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 stipulated the time frame within which supply has to be given in cases where the distribution main may require extension and also in cases where the commissioning of new sub-stations is involved. Sub-section (2) of section 43 of the Act stipulates that, it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1). Section 46 of the Act stipulates that the State Commission may, by regulations, authorise a distribution licensee to charge from a person requiring a supply of electricity in pursuance of section 43, the expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. The relevant regulations are those contained in regulation 7 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Regulation 7 reads as follows:- ## _“7._ _**Power to recover expenditure** - (1)_ **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:54:- _Subject to the conditions under clause 8, the Commission authorises the Licensee under section 46 of the Act, to recover from the owner or occupier of any premises requiring supply the expenses reasonably incurred by the Licensee for providing any electric line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply:_ _Provided that the Licensee shall not be entitled to recover such expenditure if such expenditure is under the scheme approved by the Commission or otherwise charged in the Annual Revenue Requirements of the Licensee:_ _Provided also that, the Licensee may exempt any person requiring connection under clause 8(1) from payment of expenditure if such person is below poverty line requiring supply with a connected load below 500 W or if such person belongs to SC/ST category requiring supply with a connected load below 1000 W._ _(2) The State Government may direct the Licensee to provide new electric connections to any category of consumer on payment of cost as specified in these regulations in advance to the Licensee._ _(3) The expenditure charged by the Licensee shall be based on the schedule of rates approved by the Commission and published by the Licensee annually effective from every first day of April._ _(4) The Licensee shall not include the cost of meter while preparing the cost estimates under clause 7(1). The Licensee may provide the meter to the consumer and require to give him security for the price of the meter and enter into an agreement for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a meter._ _(5) The Licensee may also require any person requiring supply of electricity, to give security for payment of monies which may become due to him as per clause 13.”_ 26. Clause (1) of regulation 7 of the Kerala Electricity **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:55:- Supply Code, 2005 empowers the distribution licensee to recover from the owner or occupier of any premises requiring supply, the expenses reasonably incurred by the licensee for providing any electric line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply. The first proviso to clause (1) of regulation 7 stipulates that licensees shall not be entitled to recover such expenditure if such expenditure is under the scheme approved by the Commission or otherwise charged in the Annual Revenue Requirements of the licensee. Clause (3) of regulation 7 stipulates that the expenditure charged by the licensee shall be based on the schedule of rates approved by the Commission and published by the licensee annually effective from every first day of April. A reading of Regulation 7 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 indicates that though the distribution licensee is entitled to recover the expenditure reasonably incurred by it for providing any electric line or electrical plant, such recovery can be only in respect of any electric line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply. This is the stipulation in section 46 as well. Even this right of the licensee is subject to the condition that the expenditure thus charged has to be based on the schedule of rates approved by the Commission **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:56:- and published by the licensee annually effective from the first day of April of every year. This is subject to the further condition that no expenditure under clause (1) of regulation 7 can be recovered if such expenditure is under the scheme approved by the Regulatory Commission or otherwise charged in the Annual Revenue Requirements of the licensee. In the instant case, the KSEB has no case that the Commission has permitted it to recover the cost of augmenting the infrastructure in its sub-stations which are involved in the cases on hand. The only justification put forward by the KSEB for demanding transmission side development charges in relation to the aforesaid sub-stations is that unless the infrastructure in the sub-stations is augmented, it will not be able to supply power to the petitioners. 27. The demand is sought to be sustained, relying on regulation 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, as well. Regulation 8 is a regulation framed by the Commission for the purpose of giving effect to the first proviso to section 43(1) of the Act which stipulates that where supply of electricity requires extension of distribution mains, or the commissioning of new substations, the distribution licensee shall supply electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:57:- within such period as may be specified by the appropriate Commission. Regulation 8(1)(a) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which is pari materia with sub section (1) of section 43 of the Act stipulates that licensee shall provide electricity connection within one month of the receipt of the application in accordance with clause 5 in cases where no extension of the distributing main is required. In cases where extension of the distribution main is required, regulation 8(2) provides that the connection shall be given within the time frame mentioned therein. It is also stipulated that if the supply of electricity to the premises applied for requires extension of electric lines, the licensee licensee shall work out the expenses, if any, subject to clause 7(1) and intimate the applicant within 15 days of the receipt of the application. The applicant is also required to pay the amount worked out and intimated within a period of 15 days or such extended period as the licensee may allow at the applicant's request. Regulation 8(2) does not stipulate that where the infrastructure in a sub-station requires to be augmented, the prospective consumer who has applied for electricity connection should pay the expenses likely to be incurred by the KSEB in that regard. Clause (3) of Regulation 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:58:- Code, 2005 stipulates that where supply of electricity to the premises applied for requires commissioning of a new sub-station, which is not covered as part of the investment plan approved by the Commission, the licensee shall inspect the premises of the applicant, prepare the cost estimate for the works and intimate the applicant within one month of receipt of the application. It is also stipulated that the licensee may require the applicant to pay the cost estimate worked out under clause 3(a) within a period of one month or such extended period as the licensee may allow at the applicant's request. It is also provided that after receipt of the required amount from the applicant, the licensee shall complete the works under sub clause 3(a) and release the connection within the time frame stipulated in regulation 8(3)(c). On the terms of clause (3) of regulation 8, the distribution licensee can call upon the applicant seeking electricity supply to pay the cost of commissioning of a new sub-station, only if it is not covered as part of the investment plan approved by the Commission. The KSEB has no case in the instant writ petitions that the giving of supply to the petitioners requires the commissioning of new substations which are not covered under the investment plan approved by the Commission. Regulations 8(2) and (3) of the **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:59:- Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 can in my opinion be relied on by the KSEB to call upon the prospective consumer to meet the expenses contemplated therein only in cases where supply to the premises requires extension of the distribution mains and also in cases where the commissioning of a new sub-station is required for the purpose of giving that supply and the commissioning of a new sub-station is not covered as a part of the investment plan approved by the Commission. Except in cases where the commissioning of a new sub-station which is not covered as a part of the investment plan approved by the Commission is required, regulation 8(3) cannot be relied on to call upon the applicant seeking power supply to meet the expenses incurred in that regard. As stated above, the KSEB has no case that the supply of power to the petitioners requires the commissioning of new substations which are not covered as a part of the investment plan approved by the Commission. The KSEB cannot therefore rely on regulations 8(2) and 8(3) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 to justify its demand. 28. Regulation 8(4) which is also relied on by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the KSEB does not militate against the view that I have taken. All that clause (4) of Regulation 8 **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:60:- stipulates that where for the purpose of supplying power, the commissioning of a new sub-station is also required, the licensee shall call upon the applicant to deposit the expenses required for extension of the electricity line and the commissioning of a new sub-station. Regulation 8(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 can apply only in cases where the contingencies stipulated in regulations 8(2) and 8(3) exist and even in such cases, the KSEB is bound by the stipulations contained in regulation 7 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. 29. The KSEB had in the year 2009 filed a petition dated 16.11.2009 before the Regulatory Commission to allow it to recover the advance investment made by it for providing supply of power, from all prospective LT, HT and EHT consumers as development charges. The proposal was to levy from all prospective LT consumers Rs.1,600/- per KVA as development charges for the load in excess of 10KW and also from existing consumers with a connected load below 10KW if they require additional load for the total load in excess of 10KW. In the case of existing LT consumers above 10KW, the request was for permission to levy development charges if additional load is applied for. In the case of HT and EHT consumers including bulk **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:61:- consumers the KSEB wanted permission to levy Rs.1000 per KVA as development charges. This was to apply to existing consumers also if they require additional load above the existing connected load. During the course of the hearing before the Commission, the KSEB contended that to attain its ambitious plan of providing electric supply to all categories of consumers on demand at their premises, it has to develop the infrastructure required in the generation, transmission and distribution sectors in advance up to the consumers premises. It was also contended that the present regulation does not allow the KSEB to recover the reasonable expenditure incurred in advance for developing the necessary infrastructure based on the anticipated demand of prospective consumers. The KSEB also contended that if the permission sought is granted, it will reduce the delay in giving supply and the consumers will get supply within one month as stipulated in regulation 8(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 at places where such investments are fully made, that the existing consumers will be relieved of the proportionate tariff burden on account of investment required for prospective consumers, since part of the cost for developmental activities will be recovered from the prospective consumers. The Commission considered these and **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:62:- other contentions raised by the KSEB and after the public hearing conducted on 16.11.2009, held as follows: “ _As found above, section 46 of the Act which provides that the State Electricity Regulatory Commission may by regulations authorize a distribution licensee to charge from a person requiring supply of electricity in pursuance of section 43 any expenses reasonably incurred on providing electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. As per Section 43(2) it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide if required electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1)._ _From the above it is clear that the Distribution licensee is entitled to charge only expenses incurred for providing supply specifically to that consumer as approved by the Commission. In the case of any consumer, KSEB is entitled to collect expenses approved by the Commission for giving electric connection to that consumer. This was approved for 2009-10 as per letter No.KSERC/IV/Supply Code 2009/746 dated 28/08/2009 of the Commission. Cost of equipment required for development of the system is to be borne by the licensee. Such expenditure incurred is recovered by way of interest and depreciation included in the ARR approved by the Commission. The capital works include all the development works in Generation, Transmission and Distribution._ _Hence the request before the Commission that KSEB may be allowed to recover a part of the advance requirement for providing supply on demand from all the prospective LT, HT, and EHT consumers as development charges cannot be allowed. The Commission orders accordingly and ” the petition is accordingly dismissed._ 30. The Commission held that the distribution licensee is **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:63:- entitled to charge only the expenses incurred by it for providing supply specifically to that consumer as approved by the Commission, that the KSEB is entitled to collect only the expenses approved by the Commission for giving electric connection to the consumer and that for the year 2009-2010, the KSEB was entitled to collect only the expenses approved by the Commission and communicated to the KSEB as per letter as per letter No.KSERC/IV/Supply Code 2009/746 dated 28/08/2009 of the Commission. It was held that the cost of equipment required for development of the system has to be borne by the licensee and that such expenditure incurred is recovered by way of interest and depreciation included in the ARR approved by the Commission. The Commission also held that the capital works include all the development works in Generation, Transmission and Distribution and dismissed the application filed by the KSEB seeking permission to recover part of the advance investment made for providing supply on demand, from all prospective consumers. Though the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the KSEB contended that Ext.P7 has nothing to do with the demand made in the instant cases, it is evident from the materials on record that amounts were collected/sought to be collected for the **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:64:- development of the sub-stations. In many of the cases demands were raised by the Transmission Divisions while in some cases demands were raised from the distribution side. But even in such cases, the payment was to be made by demand draft drawn in favour of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Transmission Circle, Kerala State Electricity KSEB, Kalamassery, Deputy Chief Engineer, Transmission Circle, Kerala State Electricity KSEB, Thrissur or other officers in the transmission side. 31. The letter dated 28.8.2009, referred to in the operative portion of Ext.P7 order has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners along with the memo dated 19.11.2012 filed in W.P.(C)No.26697 of 2011 and the order of the Commission referred to therein, is on record as Ext.P11 therein. The first page of Ext.P11 produced in W.P.(C)No.26697 of 2011 is the circular dated 8.9.2009 sent by the Secretary of the KSEB to Chief Engineers throughout the State of Kerala on the transmission and distribution sides and other Chief Engineers, enclosing with it the letter dated 28.8.2009 sent by the Secretary-in-charge of the Commission. The the Secretary-in-charge of the Commission has in the letter dated 28.8.2009 sent to the Special Officer of the KSEB stated as follows: **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:65:- _“I am directed to refer to the letters on the subject matter and communicate the Commission's Orders as follows:_ _After detailed deliberations on the estimate forwarded by Kerala State Electricity KSEB vide the referred letters, the Commission decided to approve the estimate rate for distribution works as per the details in Annexure I & II attached herewith. The approved cost data is published in KSERC's website www.erckerala.org also. The rates shall be valid for the financial year 2009-10 or till the revised rates are approved by the Commission. For works not covered under the estimate, prior approval of the Commission has to be obtained for levying charges as per Section 46 of the act. It is also made clear that expenditure required for giving connection to a particular consumer can only be levied from him/her. The development of infrastructure under Generation, Transmission & Distribution has to be met from Capital expenditure provided in the ARR.”_ 32. In the said letter, it is stated that the estimate rate for distribution works as per the details in Annexure I and II (same as pages 2 to 4 of Ext.P11) as approved by the Commission is enclosed. It is also stated that for works not covered under the estimate, prior approval of the Commission has to be obtained for levying charges as stipulated in section 46 of the Act. It was also stated that the expenditure required for giving connection to a particular consumer can only be levied from him or her and that development of infrastructure in Generation, Transmission & Distribution has to be met from the capital expenditure provided **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:66:- in the ARR. 33. By the circular dated 8.9.2009, the Secretary of the KSEB communicated this decision of the Regulatory Commission to the Chief Engineers and directed them to adopt the revised rates for the distribution works with immediate effect. It is evident from the letter dated 28.8.2009 sent by the Commission to the KSEB that the KSEB could not have relied on Ext.P11 to demand transmission side development charges as was done in the instant cases. Ext.P11 does not permit the KSEB to levy development charges on per KVA basis for improving the infrastructure in the transmission/distribution sides. The Commission had approved the rates for transmission works by Ext.P9 order dated 30.11.2010 produced in W.P.(C)No.26697 of 2011. In paragraph 2.2 of Ext.P9 it is stipulated that the rates prescribed therein apply to works above 11 KV level which may require construction of sub-stations/transmission lines or upgradation of existing transmission lines/sub-stations to cater to the larger capacity load requirement of a prospective consumer. It is evident from a reading of Ext.P9 order that it applies only for works above 11KV level. None of the petitioners fall in that category. Therefore Ext.P9 cannot be relied on to justify the ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:67:- impugned demand. As stated earlier, section 46 of the Act entitles the licensee only to charge from a person requiring a supply of electricity in pursuance of section 43, the expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. Even that right is subject to the regulations framed by the Commission, namely the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and it does not empower the KSEB to realise from a prospective consumer the cost of development of infrastructure on the transmission or distribution sides, except in cases governed by regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. 34. Section 42(1) of the Act stipulates that it shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. Clause (1) of regulation 21 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conditions of Licence For Existing Distribution Licensees) Regulations, 2006 ((hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) inter alia stipulates that the distribution licensee shall duly comply with the regulations, guidelines, directions and orders of the Commission issued from **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:68:- time to time in regard to the investments to be made in the distribution system. Clause (2) of regulation 21 stipulates that the licensee shall within one year of grant of licence, prepare a perspective plan for 5 years anticipating growth in load in the area of supply for upgrading the distribution system and submit the same to the Commission. Clause (3) of regulation 21 stipulates that based on the perspective plan, the licensee shall prepare an annual plan for executing works to meet the requirement of growth in load and for upgrading distribution system. Clause (4) of regulation 21 stipulates that the licensee shall submit its annual plan for executing works giving sources of its funding to the Commission every year along with ARR & ERC filing for the following financial year. Clause (5) of regulation 21 stipulates that the distribution licensee shall make the investment in a prudent manner being guided by the duty to build, maintain and operate an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system. Clause (6) of regulation 21 stipulates that the distribution licensee shall submit to the Commission investment plans as a part of the business plan giving details of investment schemes to be undertaken during the concerned period, for the approval of the Commission. It is also stipulated that the distribution licensee has **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:69:- to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that (a) there is a need for such investments in the distribution system contained in the investment plan (b) the distribution licensee has examined the economic, technical, system and environmental aspects of all viable alternatives to the proposal for investing in or acquiring new distribution system assets to meet such need. Clause (7) of regulation 21 stipulates that the distribution licensee shall intimate by the end of the first quarter of each financial year (a) the annual investment plan with details of investment schemes to be carried out during the financial year and (b) the progress made in implementing the annual investment plan of the previous financial year with the comparison of actual achievement vis-a-vis the plan as approved by the Commission for the concerned period. Clause (8) of regulation 21 stipulates that the distribution licensee shall not undertake schemes involving major investments, not covered under the investment plan approved by the Commission without the prior approval of the Commission, and for such approval the distribution licensee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission, the necessity and prudence of such investment. It is evident from a reading of regulation 21 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conditions of **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:70:- Licence For Existing Distribution Licensees) Regulations, 2006 that the KSEB is bound to submit its annual plan for executing works on distribution side by giving sources of its funds to the Commission every year along with ARR and ERC for the following financial year. It is stipulated that the distribution licensee has to make the investments in a prudent manner being guided by the duty to build, maintain and operate an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system. It is evident from a reading of the Act and the Regulations that the KSEB has to plan for anticipated growth in load in the area of supply for upgrading its distribution system and seek the approval of the Commission from time to time as regards the investments to be made in the distribution system. In the teeth of section 46 of the Act, in the absence of an express stipulation in the regulations or the permission of the Commission, the KSEB could not have in my opinion demanded and collected development charges on the transmission side for the purpose of giving electricity supply to the petitioners. The KSEB could have demanded from the petitioners only the expenses reasonably incurred by it in terms of regulation 7 and 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which, as held earlier do not justify the impugned levy. I accordingly hold that the levy **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:71:- and collection of transmission side development charges, which is impugned in these writ petitions is illegal. 35. That takes me to the challenge to the validity of the demand for non-refundable advance in terms of paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 order produced in W.P.(C)No.26697 of 2011. The levy stipulated in paragraph 2 is attacked as a levy without the approval of the Commission. A reading of paragraph 2 indicates that advance amount is required to be collected on receipt of applications from prospective consumers for power requirements above 10 KVA. The purpose stated is to ensure the genuineness of the request. It is also stipulated that the amount will be adjusted without interest in the estimated amount to be paid by the applicant and that the advance amount shall not be refundable in case the applicant withdraws the application. The amount sought to be collected under paragraph 2 ranges from Rs.2,000/to Rs.20,000/- from four different categories of applicants. Regulation 5(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 stipulates that the licensee may require an applicant to remit nonrefundable application fee as stipulated therein. The application fee stipulated is Rs.50/- for LT supply, Rs.1000/- for HT supply and Rs.5000/- for EHT supply. The regulations do not permit the ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:72:- KSEB to levy any other amount as application fee. It does not also authorise it to collect any other amount and to treat it as non-refundable deposit. The demand for advance as contemplated in paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 order has admittedly not been approved by the Commission. In any case, the KSEB has no such case. In Paragraph 2.2 of Ext.P8 it is stipulated as follows: _2.2 When the applicant tender the preliminary application (Application for power requirement above 10 KVA) along with the advance amount, an acknowledgment mentioning the date of preliminary inspection shall be given to the applicant. The application fee (Rs.50 for LT, Rs.1000 for HT and Rs.5000 for EHT) shall be collected only at the time of receipt of individual service connection application._ The stipulations regarding payment of advance amount in paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 and the stipulation in paragraph 2.2 of Ext.P8 that the applicant should tender along with the preliminary application, the advance amount cannot therefore be sustained. 36. The Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 was enacted inter alia to provide for regulating the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. When the Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted and brought into force, the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 stood repealed. Interpreting the provisions of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:73:- 1998, the Apex Court held in **BSES Ltd. v.Tata Power Co.Ltd. and Others** (2004 (1) SCC 195) that the provisions thereof have overriding effect over the provisions contained in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and that after the date of commencement of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 it is no longer open to a licensee or utility to unilaterally increase the tariff. It was held that tariff can be enhanced only after the approval of the Commission and charging of enhanced tariff which has not been approved by the Commission will amount to commission of an offence. The Apex Court repelled the contention of the generating company (Tata Power Company Limited) that under the agreement entered into by it with the distribution licensee (Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Company), it was entitled to unilaterally enhance the charge, on the ground that in view of section 29 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, tariff for supply of electricity in whole sale, bulk or retail has to be determined by the Electricity Regulatory Commission. In subsection (4) of section 29 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 it was interalia provided that the holder of each licence and other persons including the KSEB or its successor body authorised to transmit, sell, distribute or supply electricity ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:74:- wholesale, bulk or retail in the State shall observe the methodologies and procedures specified by the State Commission from time to time in calculating the expected revenue from charges which he is permitted to recover and in determining tariffs to collect those revenues. Sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 empowered the State Regulatory Commission to determine by regulations the terms and conditions for fixation of tariff. Section 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the State Regulatory Commission to prescribe by regulations, the expenses which a licensee can charge from a person requiring supply of electricity. Section 62(1) of the Act empowers the State Regulatory Commission to determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee, for the transmission of electricity, wheeling of electricity and retail sale of electricity. Sub-section (2) of section 62 of the Act stipulates that the appropriate Commission may require a licensee or a generating company to furnish separate details, as may be specified in respect of generation, transmission and distribution for determination of tariff. In sub-section (4) of section 62 it is stipulated that no tariff or part of any tariff may **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:75:- ordinarily be amended, more frequently than once in any financial year, except in respect of any changes expressly permitted under the terms of any fuel surcharge formula as may be specified. In sub-section (6) of section 62 it is stipulated that if any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under section 62, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee. It is evident from the provisions referred to above that ever since the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 was enacted and brought into force, the KSEB and other utilities engaged in the business of distribution of electricity cannot unilaterally raise the tariff or levy charges which are not permitted by the Electricity Regulatory Commission. 37. That takes me to the nature of the relief to be granted in the instant writ petition. The petitioners contend that the levy and collection of transmission side development charges on per KVA basis and demand for non refundable advance based on Ext.P8 order produced in W.P.(C) No.26697 of 2011 are without the sanction or authority of law and therefore they are entitled to **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:76:- refund of the amounts illegally collected with interest. From the pleadings and the materials on record it can be seen that the KSEB had demanded and collected transmission side development charges at different rates from various petitioners. In respect of petitioners who had applied for electricity supply from Aluva substation, the amount demanded was Rs.2,600/- per KVA; from Maradu sub-station it was Rs.2,690/- per KVA; from Kakkanad sub-station it was Rs.2,360/- per KVA and Rs.2,393/- per KVA; from Perumbavoor sub-station it was Rs.1,350/-per KVA; from Angamali sub-station it was Rs.2,900/- KVA; from Kalamassery sub-station it was Rs.2,420/- per KVA; from Chottanikara substation it was Rs.2,360/- per KVA; from Kazhakkoottam substation it was Rs.1,850/- per KVA; and from Tripunithura substation it was Rs.2,690/- per KVA. Some among the petitioners were also called upon to make along with their applications an advance deposit in terms of paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 order produced in W.P.(C) No.26697 of 2011. The demand for collection of these charges have been held to be illegal. The petitioners have in these writ petitions sought for an order directing the KSEB to refund the amounts illegally collected from them. In **Consumer Online Foundation and others v. Union of India and others** (2011 **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:77:- (5) SCC 360) the Apex Court considered the validity of levy of development fee by the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd./Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. in the Airports at Delhi and Mumbai. Interpreting the provisions of section 22-A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 as it stood prior to 1.1.2009, the Apex Court held that in the absence of rules which prescribed the rate, no development fee could have been collected. Interpreting section 22-A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 as amended with effect from 1.1.2009, the Apex Court held that after the amendment, development fee could have been collected only after public notice and the regulatory authority constituted under the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 has approved the levy. It was held that before the amendment to section 22-A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 development fee could not have been levied for want of rules prescribing the rate of fee and thereafter it could not have been levied for the reason that the regulatory authority constituted under the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 had not held a public hearing and allowed the development fee to be collected. The Apex Court however held that as the users who had paid the fee are not identifiable and **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:78:- cannot be traced out, an order directing refund cannot be made. The Apex Court however directed the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Limited and the Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. to account the development fees so far levied and collected by them to the Airports Authority of India for the purpose of utilization by the Airports Authority of India in terms of the provisions contained in the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. In the instant case, the persons who have paid the fee are identifiable. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have paid transmission side development charges as demanded by the KSEB. The levy and collection being without the sanction or authority of law, I am of the opinion that the KSEB is bound to refund to the petitioners from whom transmission side development charges were collected, the amounts deposited by them. 38. That takes me to the question whether the KSEB should be held liable to pay interest to the petitioners on the amounts collected from them by way of development charges. The Apex Court has in **Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [** (2011) 8 SCC 161] held that a person who has retained the money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience is bound to **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:79:- disgorge all the benefits which he has availed. In **South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Others** (2003 (8) SCC 648) the Apex Court held that restitution is a principle of equity and that interest is also payable in equity. It was held that the rule in equity is that interest is payable even in the absence of any agreement or custom to that effect though it can be subjected to a contra agreement. The Apex Court held that applicability of the rule to award interest in equity is attracted on the existence of a state of circumstances being established which justify the exercise of such equitable jurisdiction and such circumstances can be many. Section 62(6) of the Act recognises the aforesaid principle and stipulates that if a licensee or generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under section 62, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate, without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee. In the view that I have taken namely that the KSEB has illegally demanded and collected transmission side development charges it has necessarily to be held that subsection (2) of section 62 of the Act is attracted. Even otherwise, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in **Maharashtra Electricity** **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:80:- ## **Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. and Others** (2007 (8) SCC 381) on equitable considerations also the petitioners are entitled to interest. Regulation 23 of the Supply Code stipulates that in case of belated payments penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum based on actual number of days of delay from the due date up to 30 days and thereafter at the rate of 18% per annum for the entire period of default shall be charged by the licensee. Having regard to the said provision, I deem it appropriate to hold that the KSEB should pay to the petitioners simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts collected from them illegally. Consequently, the KSEB should refund to the petitioners the amounts collected from them by way of transmission side development charges/advance deposit in terms of paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 order produced in W.P.(C) No.26697 of 2011, together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of remittance. I accordingly allow the writ petitions and direct the respondents in each of the writ petitions to refund to the respective petitioners the amounts collected from them toward transmission side development charges as also the amounts if any collected from them in terms of paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 order ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** **==> picture [28 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** produced in W.P.(C).No.26697 of 2011, together with simple interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of remittance till the date of actual refund. Refund as directed above shall be made expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date on which each of the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Special Officer (Revenue) of the KSEB. The parties shall bear their respective costs. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.** vps/ahg/rkc/aks ## **W.P(C)No.18726/2011 & connected cases.** -:82:- **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------** ## **JUDGMENT** **29[th] October, 2012**