Silver Stone Rubber India Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as MKP Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vithura, Thiruvananthapuram v. State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 34042 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **SILVER STONE RUBBER INDIA PVT.LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS MKP SONS PVT LTD, VITHURA, VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.J JACOB.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.M.RAJESH SMT.RESHMA G.MENON SRI.T.L.SREERAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY & POWER DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 004 3 THE SPECIAL OFFICER REVENUE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 004 4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT = 695 004** **BY ADVS. RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) SRI.K.T.PAULOSE, SC, KSEB SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY (SR.) SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 34042 OF 2015 : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a crumb rubber production unit. The petitioner was having an HT power connection with the 2[nd] respondent- Kerala State Electricity Board ('Board' for short), taken in the year 1994 under the Special Incentive Scheme/ Policy of the 1[st] respondent-State. Since the Government did not adhere to the promises given to the consumers with regard to the uninterrupted 100% incentive supply, similarly situated persons like the petitioner filed original petitions before this Court. On dismissal of the original petitions, the matter was taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as per Ext.P5 judgment, directed the 2[nd] respondent to **WP(C) NO. 34042 OF 2015 : 3 :** extend the benefit of the period of incentives to the petitioners therein. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Board to extend the said benefit to the petitioner also. However, the same was rejected by Ext.P6. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: “ i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to extend the benefits of Ext.P-5 judgment of the Apex Court and calculate the period during which 100% electricity supply was not given to the petitioner for the period from 29.06.1994, within a time limit as fixed by this Honourable Court. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the **WP(C) NO. 34042 OF 2015 : 4 :** respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners request to extend the benefit of Pre 92 tariff during the power cut period as per Ext.P-1 to P-4 in the light of Ext.P-5 judgment of the Apex Court.” 2. When this writ petition came up for further consideration before this Court on 23.01.2024, it was submitted on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in **Kerala** v. **State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumer’s Association, Kalamassery and Others** [2016 (5) KHC 634], the benefit of Ext.P5 judgment cannot be granted to the petitioner. It is stated that though an SLP was preferred against the said judgment, the same has **WP(C) NO. 34042 OF 2015 : 5 :** ## been dismissed. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment of this Court read as follows: “13. There are consumers, who may have waived their rights against the short supply of energy during the period when power cut of less than 50% was in force and acquiesced to the quantity supplied to them. There are also consumers who agitated the matter unsuccessfully before this Court and did not pursue the matter further before the Apex Court. After the judgment of the Apex Court was rendered, Ext.P6 an omnibus representation was made by the Association. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that it was made on behalf of all members of the Association and the request made is that the benefit of Ext.P5 judgment rendered on 06/02/2014 shall be extended to all. The first question to be considered is ## **WP(C) NO. 34042 OF 2015 : 6 :** whether the writ petition filed in the aforesaid was background, maintainable. 14. According to us, the greivence, if any, of the affected consumers is an individual grievance. This is also not a grievance, which could have been collectively raised or considered. The effect of denial of benefit of extension of period will vary from consumer depending upon, the rate of power cut imposed, its duration, the quantity agreed to be supplied, consumption pattern of the consumer and such other relevant factors. Secondly, even when benefit of a judgment rendered by the Apex Court is claimed, issues such as whether the claimants is guilty of delay and laches and whether he was waived his rights and acquiesced to the situation etc., will have to be considered duly adverting to the aforesaid **WP(C) NO. 34042 OF 2015 : 7 :** factors. Therefore, such individual grievances, if at all, are to be agitated only by the consumers concerned and the Association could not collectively maintain a writ petition before this Court as a representative action, on behalf of all the consumers.” In view of the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Ext.P5 judgment. There is no reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB ## **WP(C) NO. 34042 OF 2015 : 8 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(MS) 71/90/PD DT. 21.5.1990. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE KSE BOARD'S ORDER NO. PLG.COM/2015/90 DT. 19.6.1990. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(MS) 4/92/PD DT. 06.2.1992. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KSE BOARD'S ORDER NO. 559/92/PLT.COM DT. 27.3.1992. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10103-10106 OF 2010 OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DT. 06.2.2014. EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15.6.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO. HTB-5/549/2015-16.**