The main grievance of the petitioners as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps for realization of the alleged arrears, wrongly treating the tariff applicable to the petitioners' institution under the 'category VII A', in place of the present categorization under 'VI A'. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners' institutions have been assessed under Tariff VI A till March, 2010. Later demand was raised in respect of the alleged arrears issuing reassessment bills under Category VII A which hence is under challenge in these writ petitions.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel as well the learned Government Pleader.
3. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, the challenge against re-categorization under almost similar circumstances was originally considered by a Division Bench of this Court and judgment was passed in favour W.P.C. No.16921/10 & conn. cases -2-
of the consumers, as per the decision rendered in Bro. Joseph Antony v. K.S.E.B (2009 (3) KLT 1022). It is further stated that the issue is now pending consideration before the Apex Court in various SLPs filed by the respondent Board. Referring to the course and events, various other writ petitions came to be disposed of, directing the respondents to keep the recovery of arrears in abeyance, subject to satisfaction of regular bills under LT VII A category.
4. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that, the petitioners are also entitled to have similar extent of relief. Recovery steps in respect of arrears shall be kept in abeyance and it shall be subject to the outcome of the issue pending consideration before the Apex Court. Satisfaction of the regular bills shall be effected under LT VII A tariff for the time being and it shall be subject to the orders to be passed as aforesaid.
The writ petitions are disposed of. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-