In Brief
The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission had segregated Self-Financing Educational Institutions (SFEIs) into a higher tariff category ('Commercial') while placing government-run and government-aided schools in a lower non-domestic category. The High Court's Division Bench struck down the tariff as unjustifiable differentiation. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the Commission lawfully differentiated based on 'purpose for supply' under Section 62(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court found that while both types of institutions impart education, their purposes differ materially: government institutions serve students from modest backgrounds and are tax-funded welfare measures, whereas SFEIs are self-financed. The Court rejected the requirement to disclose reasons where tariffs go uncontested and approved the tariff categorization. The Commission's appeal was allowed.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[ { "raw_citation": "T.M.A Pai Foundation and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2002 (8) SCC 481", "case_name": "T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka", "cited_year": "2002", "paragraph": "2, 12", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "Learned counsel for the SFEIs, being the writ petitioners have asserted that the purpose of both Government or Government Aided Institutions and Self-financing Institutions is the same, which is imparting education and discrimination between these two sets of institutions is not permissible under Section 62(3) of the Act... our attention has been drawn to four authorities of this Court being the cases of T.M.A Pai Foundation (supra), P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 537], Islamic Academy of Education & Another v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [(2003) 6 SCC 697] and Modern School v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 583]. All these authorities deal with the fee-structures of private educational institutions." }, { "raw_citation": "Social SG of Assisi sisters v. KSEB 1988 (1) KLT 1727", "case_name": "Social SG of Assisi sisters v. KSEB", "cited_year": "1988", "paragraph": "2", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [(2010) 4 SCC 603]", "case_name": "PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission", "cited_year": "2010", "paragraph": "8, 9", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "State of Gujarat v. Utility Users Welfare Association [(2018) 6 SCC 221]", "case_name": "State of Gujarat v. Utility Users Welfare Association", "cited_year": "2018", "paragraph": "8, 9", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Shri Sitaram Sugars Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1990) 3 SCC 223]", "case_name": "Shri Sitaram Sugars Co. Ltd. v. Union of India", "cited_year": "1990", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India (1976 2 SCC 981)", "case_name": "The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India", "cited_year": "1976", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594", "case_name": "S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India", "cited_year": "1990", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan [SLP(C) No.12766 of 2008]", "case_name": "Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan", "cited_year": "2010", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 537]", "case_name": "P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra", "cited_year": "2005", "paragraph": "12", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Islamic Academy of Education & Another v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [(2003) 6 SCC 697]", "case_name": "Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka", "cited_year": "2003", "paragraph": "12", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Modern School v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 583]", "case_name": "Modern School v. Union of India", "cited_year": "2004", "paragraph": "12, 13", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Rohtas industries Ltd. vs. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. (1984 (Supp) SCC 161)", "case_name": "Rohtas industries Ltd. v. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board", "cited_year": "1984", "paragraph": "17", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "Contention of the writ petitioners is that capacity to pay cannot be the determinant factor in electricity tariff fixing exercise, relying on the case of Rohtas industries Ltd. vs. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. (1984 (Supp) SCC 161)... But ratio of these two decisions do not aid the writ petitioners." }, { "raw_citation": "M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. vs. Shiv Narayan & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 283", "case_name": "M.P. Electricity Board v. Shiv Narayan", "cited_year": "2005", "paragraph": "17", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "In the case of M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. vs. Shiv Narayan & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 283, this Court found professional activities of an advocate did not constitute commercial activity so as to attract commercial rate of electricity. But ratio of these two decisions do not aid the writ petitioners." } ]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.