M/S. SOUTHERN ISPAT LTD. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 25-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. SOUTHERN ISPA T LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
MARCH 25, 2004 
B 
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 136-Concurrent findings of fact-Inte1ference with-Held: As a 
C rule, Supreme Court does not inteifere with concurrent findings of/act recorded 
by two courts below-But in the special case, the factual findings were examined 
and the view taken by the Division Bench was found not so perverse as to 
require interference-Practice and Procedure. 
D 
Electricity (Supply) Act, I 948 : 
Concessional power tariff-State Govemment introduced a policy of 
exempting industrial units from enhanced power tariff if it started "commercial 
production" between 1.1.1992 and 3 I.12. I 996-Entit/ementto--Held: Whether 
the industrial unit commenced "commercial production" within this period 
E was a question of fact-Since the concurrent findings on this question of fact 
arrived at by the courts below was not perverse, no interference was called 
for under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 
Electricity Rule, 1956: 
p 
Rule 65-lnstaflation of diesel generating set-Permission of Chief 
Electrical Inspector-Applicability of-Held : Such a diesel generating set 
could not be installed without the permission of the Chief Electrical inspector. 
The respondent-State issued a policy exempting industrial units, 
which commenced "commercial production" between 1.1.1992 and 
G 31.12.1996 from payment of enhanced power tariff. The appellant-
company intended to manufacture 24,000 tons of iron and steel ingots and 
24,000 tons of iron and steel bars, coil etc. The appellant made an 
application to the State Electricity Board for allocation of certain quantity 
of power. However, the appellant's factory was yet to be constructed and 
H 
570 
SOlJTllERN !SPAT LTD. 1· SlATF 
571 
machinery was to be transported and installed thereafter. Subsequently, A 
the State Electricity Board sanctioned the power allocation but actual 
power supply did not cori1mence due to various reasons. 
Apprehending that the State Electricity Board was deliberately 
delaying the matter, so that the appellant would not be able to carry out 
commercial production before the cut off date of 31.12.1996, the appellant B 
submitted a scheme to the State Government for generation of 125 KVA 
electrical energy by installation of a diesel power generating set in its 
factory. The said scheme was sanctioned by the State Government subject 
to certain conditions. The electric wiring was completed in the factory of 
the appellant and the Electrical Inspector accorded his sanction C 
only in the year 1998. 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging 
the bill for charges for electrical energy supplied to the appellant's 
industrial unit at rates in excess of the pre-1992 tariff rates. A single Judge 
dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant had not complied D 
with the conditions subject to which power supply at concessional tariff 
rates was to be made. The Division Bench upheld this judgment. Hence, 
the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that despite the delay 
in sanction and supply and of electricity, the appellant had installed its E 
own diesel generating set and commenced "commercial production" on 
14.12.1996. To substantiate its claim the appellant relied on certain invoices 
for sales made to customers in the month of December 1996, a certificate 
issued by the State Finance Corporation, the copies of the 'nil' return made 
to the Commercial Taxes Department, the declaration made to the Excise F 
Department and certain other documents. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The question to be decided in this case is essentially a 
question of fact, namely, whether the appellant had started "commercial G 
production" between 1.1.1992 and 31.12.1996 so as to be entitled to power 
supply at concessional tariff rates. As a rule, it is not the practice of this 
Court to interfere with factual finding, which have been concurrently 
recorded by two courts below. Both the single Judge and the Division 
Bench have concurrently answered all factual findings against the 
appellant. On that ground, itself the appellant must fail. Nonetheless, as H 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20041 3 S.C.R. 
A the appeal was argued with some seriousness, the factual findings have 
been examined only from the point of view of interference under the special 
jurisdiction under Article 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.