1992 INSC 0296
                                               M/s Paras Enterprises

                                                           Vs

                                            Karnataka Electricity Board

                     Civil Appeal No. 1853 of 1992, With SLP (C) No. 6254 of 1991

                                 (Kuldip Singh, Smt. M. S. Fathima Beevi JJ)

                                                      24.04.1992

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The question before the High Court was whether appellant is liable to pay electricity charges
under "Tariff Schedule LT-5(b)" or "Tariff Schedule LT-3" of the Electric Power Tariff as prescribed
by the Karnataka Electricity Board. The appellant claimed that it was covered by Tariff Schedule
LT-5(b) and as such the Karnataka Electricity Board has no power to issue demand notice claiming
electricity charges under Tariff Schedule LT-3. Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by the appellant.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant Schedules are reproduced hereunder :

                  #"TARIFF SCHEDULE LT- 5(b) TARIFF SCHEDULE LT-3(Industrial Heating and
                  Motive (Commercial Non-Industrial Lights, Power including Lighting) Fans, Heating
                  and Motive Power)Applicable for supply to Applicable to power supply
                  forcommercial, industrial and other lights, fans, Radio/TV Receivers,installations not
                  covered under Air conditioners, Refrigerators,LT-3 & LT-4, Film Studios,
                  Xerox/Photo copiers and CommercialXray installations, poultry farms Motive Power,
                  etc. for commercialwith sanctioned load of more non-industrial purposes.than 7.5
                  KW. * * * "##

4. The Division Bench on the basis of the facts as disclosed by the appellant before the High Court,
came to the conclusion that the appellant was using the cold storage for commercial purposes and as
such the Electricity Board was justified in issuing demand under Tariff Schedule LT-3. The Division
Bench dismissed the writ appeal on the following reasoning :

                  "We have already extracted the nature of activity carried on by the appellant. It will
                  be clear from what we have extracted in the beginning of our judgment that it is not
                  using this Cold Storage Plant for any industrial purpose. It does nothing more than
                  getting potato seeds, storing them and distributing to the framers on a marginal
                  profit. This undoubtedly is a commercial activity. Once this conclusion is reached,
                  we do not know how it could ever be contended that the appellant cannot be charged
                  under Tariff Scheduled LT-3, that applied specifically to commercial purpose.
                  Therefore the impugned demand is well in order. As the learned Judge rightly
                  concluded what is sought to be done by the Electricity Board is a revision of tariff by
                  correcting the mistake."
5. We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court under appeal. We agree with the reasoning
and the conclusions reached by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

</html