VARGHESE OUSEPH v. THE STATE OF KERALA

BY ADVS.SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,SRI. NIRMAL S. SC, KSEB SRI.K.P.HARISH – SC - KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.4564/2013 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner was the successful bidder in a tender floated for the work of dewatering of certain padasekharams. The petitioner was awarded a work in respect of 'Arupanku Padasekharam' which is evident from Ext.P2 communication from the Punja Special Officer, Alappuzha. An amount of Rs.515/- per Acre is the subsidy payable for the same. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the motor pump rent (for motor pump availed from Government agencies) and electricity charges are being deducted from the subsidy amount being paid to the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P4 proceedings of the 1st respondent will show that electricity charges and rent for motor pump which was realised from a similar contractor was directed to be refunded by the Government. It is submitted that Ext.P3 Government Order will show that electricity for agricultural activities was to be supplied free of charge. It is submitted that considering Ext.P4 Government Order extending the benefit to a similarly situated contractor and considering Ext.P3 Government Order which offers power supply free of charges for agricultural activities, the petitioner should also have been paid the subsidy without deducting the motor pump rent and charges for W.P.(C)No.4564/2013 3 electricity.

The learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board would submit that a reading of Exts.P1 and P2 itself indicate that the entire cost of pumping was to be met by the petitioner and that the electricity charges also had to be paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that, after taking part in a tender where there were such clear stipulations, the petitioner cannot turn around and say that he is entitled to the payment of subsidy without deducting motor pump rent and electricity charges. It is submitted that Ext.P4 Government Order was issued specifically stating that it shall not be treated as a precedent and considering the special circumstances of the case. It is pointed out that there is no negative equality under the Constitution and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim differential treatment unless he were to establish his right independently by establishing that he was to be paid subsidy without deduction of motor pump rent and electricity charges.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of reliefs in the writ petition. W.P.(C)No.4564/2013 4

A reading of the terms of tender in Ext.P2 and especially clauses (6) and (8) thereof will indicate that the petitioner was liable to pay the rent for the pump obtained by the petitioner from the Government and he was also liable to pay the electricity charges. Dewatering of padasekharams is a specific activity for which tender was floated and Ext.P3 order which extends free power connection to agricultural activities did not obviously extend to the dewatering of padasekharams. Having participated in the tender with specific conditions, the petitioner cannot turn around and say that he must obtain the subsidy amount without deducting the motor pump rent and the electricity charges. A reading of paragraph 9 of the writ petition will also indicate that the petitioner who was engaged in similar activity earlier was paid the subsidy amount at that time only after deducting the motor pump rent and the electricity charges. There is no negative equality in the Constitution of India and merely because some benefits had been extended to one other, the petitioner cannot claim that similar benefits must be extended to him. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE W.P.(C)No.4564/2013 5 PETTIONER'S EXHIBITS APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF TENDER NOTICE ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 1187 ME EXT.P2: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 08-11-2011 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PUNJA SPECIAL OFFICER. EXT.P3: COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.311/95/AD/DATED 31-08-1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.912/12/Agri. Dated 16-04-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10-09-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/12 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ABOUT THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT DEDUCTED AS ELECTRICITY CHARGES /RENT FOR MOTOR PUMP AS ON 10-09-2012. EXT.P8: COPY OF REPLY DATED 15-10-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ABOUT THE DETAILS OF WHEN EXEMPTION TO ELECTRICITY CHARGES WAS GIVEN. EXT.P9: COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 15-10-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ABOUT THE DETAILS OF WHEN EXEMPTION TO ELECTRICITY CHARGES WAS GIVEN. EXT.P10: COPY OF REPLY DATED 31-10-2012 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE APPLICATION DATED 15-10-12.