V. Chitambaresh, J.

Two shop rooms on the ground floor of a three storied building with separate electricity connections are being utilised by the petitioner allegedly for conducting a bakery within Perumbavoor Municipality. The electricity connections to the two rooms lying adjacent bearing consumer Nos. 22696 and 22747 are on LT VII tariff and LTIV tariff and the entirety of the first floor is admittedly used as a restaurant. The Anti Power Theft Squad found on inspection that the room having electricity connection on LT IV tariff was in fact not confined to the business of bakery. Ext. P1 site mahazar prepared at that juncture revealed the existence of ice cream freezer, cold storage freezer, juice mixer, collector, grinder, mixy, freezer among other apparatus. The third respondent Assistant Engineer thereupon issued Ext. P2 provisional bill imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 5,26,845/- (Rupees Five lakhs twenty six thousand eight hundred and forty five only). The petitioner filed Ext. P3 objection thereto contending that he is using the premises for bakery business only and that penalty if at all could only be on LT IV tariff. The second respondent however confirmed the provisional bill by Ext. P4 order in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' only). The petitioner though filed Ext. P5 appeal under Section 127 of the Act to the second respondent did not prosecute the same allegedly being unable to make the statutory deposit of one half of the amount assessed. It is under these circumstances has the present writ petition been filed seeking to quash Ext. P4 order and for a declaration that penalty if any could only be on LT IV tariff as applicable then. The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short) disputes the very maintainability of the writ petition contending inter alia that the petitioner has to pursue the appellate remedy. I heard Mrs. Saritha David Chunkath, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. P.K. Radhika, Standing Counsel on behalf of the KSEB.

2. The site inspection was on 27/07/2011 at a time when the schedule of tariff and terms and conditions for retail supply by KSEB with effect from 01/01/2010 issued by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission was in vogue. Low Tension - IV (LT - IV) - industry tariff would certainly apply in respect of 'bakeries where manufacturing process and sales are carried out in the same premises'. Bakery in common parlance means a bake house or a place where baked items are sold and the meaning of bake is to dry, harden or cook in an oven or a fire of a particular variety of eatables. Ice creams or juices are certainly not baked items and the premises used for the same cannot be termed as a bakery in order to apply LT IV tariff as claimed by the petitioner. It will be reasonable to apply Low Tension - VII (LT VII) commercial tariff in such circumstances as if the area is a commercial premises, hotel or restaurant as contended by the KSEB. I am of the definite opinion that any shop where eatables other than baked items are sold or manufactured cannot be termed as a bakery entitling the benefit of LT IV tariff.

3. A Division Bench of this Court in Basheer Vs. State of Kerala has explained the term 'bakery products' of course in the context of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as follows:

"Persons accustomed with bakery and purchasing its products would only understand the words to mean 'only those goods which are ordinarily baked in a bakery'. If certain dealers in bakery products make Jilabi, Halva, Gulabjaum and fried food articles such as banana chips, tapioca chips, murukku, pakkavada etc., it will only show that making of such goods is their individual choice or preference or taste. It is also a matter of common knowledge that modern marketing has many dimensions. For convenience of the customers, certain bakeries may sell even pickles, pappadom or even stationery articles. They are goods made or sold