Question involved in all these cases is as to whether private educational institutions are liable to be charged under LT VIIA tariff, in distinction with other educational institutions which are charged under LT VIA. 2. The issue now remains settled in favour of the petitioners as per a Division Bench decision of this court in Bro. Joseph Antony V. K.S.E.B (2009 (3) KLT 1022).
But the respondents are continuing with demands for payment of charges at the enhanced tariff along with payment of arrears, on the basis that the hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed operation of the above said judgment. It is pertinent to note that, unless the legal position is reversed this court is bound to follow the decision cited above, in view of the ruling of in Abdu Rehiman V. District Collector, Malappuram (2009 (4) KLT 485).
2. However, this court take note of the fact that W.P.(C). Nos. 22588 of 2009 & cont. cases -2-
the question regarding liability for payment at the enhanced tariff will depend upon the ultimate outcome of the decision in the Special Leave Petitions pending before the hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the interim stay granted against operation of the judgment in Bro. Joseph Antony's case (cited supra), this court is not inclined to restrain the Board from charging the enhanced tariff. This is especially because of the fact that, if ultimately the hon'ble Supreme Court upholds the change of tariff, the respondent Board will be put to prejudice. On the other hand, the petitioner can seek refund/adjustment if the ultimate decision is in favour of them. However, it is only just and proper to restrain the respondent Board from recovering the arrears at the enhanced tariff as demanded in the impugned notices, till the matter is ultimately decided by the hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to keep in abeyance recovery of amounts demanded under the impugned notices till the matter is W.P.(C). Nos. 22588 of 2009 & cont. cases -3-
ultimately decided by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLPs which are pending.
4. It is made clear that, the respondents are free to charge the petitioners under LT VIIA tariff for continued consumption. It is further made clear that, on the event the hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the judgment in Bro. Joseph Antony's case (supra) payments if any made at the enhanced tariff will be liable to be refunded/adjusted. It is also made clear that the respondents will be entitled to recover the arrears if the change of tariff is ultimately upheld by the apex court.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
/true copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn