JUDGMENT : ( HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. ) The petitioner, the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB), has filed the captioned writ petition, seeking to challenge the findings contained in Ext.P9 issued by the 1 st respondent – appellate authority, in an appeal filed by the 2 nd respondent – consumer, against an assessment of electricity charges on the basis of the findings at the time of the inspection on 28.10.2014. 2. The 2 nd respondent is stated to be an industry engaged in the manufacture, storage and sale of Maharani Choice Malabar Porota, Lovely frozen Porota as well as fish labelled as Ribbon fish whole etc. Admittedly, the 2 nd respondent was provided with an electricity connection under the tariff LT-IV (A) - industry. The premises of the 2 nd respondent was inspected on 28.10.2014. Ext.P1 is the mahazar prepared at the time of inspection. On the basis of the details collected, a provisional assessment has been carried out, as seen from Ext.P2. As against the provisional assessment, the petitioner filed a reply, and on the basis of the contentions taken, Ext.P4 final order dated 28.11.2014 is issued, essentially finding that the activity carried on by the 2 nd respondent falls in the LT-VII Commercial (A) category and hence demanding an amount of Rs.16,14,894/-. The 2 nd respondent chose to file an appeal before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority, by Ext.P9 order, found that the activity carried on by the 2 nd respondent was only liable for classification under LT-IV(A) and thus sought to allow the appeal. 3. It is challenging the findings contained in the appellate order at Ext.P9 that the captioned writ petition is filed by the KSEB. 4. I have heard Sri.Joseph Antony C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent as well as Sri.K.P.Rajeevan, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 5. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is with reference to the assessment carried out pursuant to Ext.P4 and the findings in Ext.P9 appellate order. It is not in dispute that the 2 nd respondent was provided with an electricity connection under the tariff LT-IV(A). 5. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is with reference to the assessment carried out pursuant to Ext.P4 and the findings in Ext.P9 appellate order. It is not in dispute that the 2 nd respondent was provided with an electricity connection under the tariff LT-IV(A). The stand of the petitioner Board is that even on the face of the afore connection, the liability of the 2 nd respondent is under LT-VII(A) in view of the activity carried on by the 2 nd respondent. 6. In such circumstances, the evaluation of the assessment as well as the findings in the appellate order are essentially to be with reference to the mahazar at Ext.P1. A perusal of the mahazar at Ext.P1 would show that, in the unit in question, there were two parts – a manufacturing section and a chilling section. The fact that even at the time of the inspection, the manufacturing was being carried on in the kitchen area has been specifically recorded in the site mahazar. In such circumstances, as regards the manufacturing section, the fact that the manufacturing was being carried on is positively admitted in the site mahazar. It is with reference to the afore that the activity in the chilling section is to be noticed. In this connection, I notice that the 2 nd respondent had obtained registration as a manufacturing unit from the State Government pursuant to Ext.R2(a), and even according to the KSEB, the activity of the petitioner was the storing of the manufactured item after freezing and its subsequent sale. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the activity of freezing carried on in the chilling section was only an integral part of the industrial activity carried on by the 2 nd respondent herein, and the same would attract the classification under LT-IV(A) alone. 7. In this connection, I have also referred to the tariff order under LT-IV(A) category. It is not in dispute that the afore category was specifically with reference to an “industrial activity”, and various manufacturing activities, including “seafood processing”, have been covered by the afore entry. When an activity like seafood processing has been covered under the afore category, it goes without saying that it is not the mere manufacturing, but the subsequent storing is also covered under the afore category. When an activity like seafood processing has been covered under the afore category, it goes without saying that it is not the mere manufacturing, but the subsequent storing is also covered under the afore category. This is also made clear with reference to the provisions of LT-VII(A) category, sought to be relied on by the petitioner Board, wherein, though freezing plants, cold storages, etc. are specifically covered, those are units where no manufacturing activity is being undertaken. This is made clear with reference to the inclusion of “bakeries (without manufacturing process)”. Thus, the tariff as regards bakeries, not having any manufacturing process, perhaps classification should be under LT-VII(A). However, if manufacturing is being carried out, going by the provisions of the tariff, I am of the opinion that the 2 nd respondent was justified in contending that assessment ought to have been only with reference to LT-IV(A). 8. In that view of the matter, the findings contained in Ext.P9 order cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary. I also take note of the specific findings contained in Ext.P9 to the effect that the unit was found engaged in the manufacturing of banana chips at the time of inspection. In that view of the matter also, the findings in Ext.P9 cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary. 9. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.35699 of 2015, I notice that the afore was with reference to a different entry in the tariff. 10. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition. Therefore, the captioned writ petition would stand dismissed.