Allowed

A M Mallaraje Urs v. the Assistant Executive Engineer ( Ei)

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2013WP/1900/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition filed by an electricity consumer seeking to quash a back billing order. The court held that assessing back billing without issuing a notice or providing an opportunity to be heard was illegal under Section 126(2) of the Electricity Act. The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to file objections on a provisional assessment, ordering

What did the court decide?

Impugned order and notice quashed; petitioner directed to file objections on provisional assessment; respondents ordered to pass orders after providing opportunity of hearing.

A M Mallaraje Urs Vs the Assistant… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 1900/2012 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

¶8

Sri. A M MALLARAJE URS S/O. LATE MALLARAJE URS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS AGRICULTURIST ANSALE VILLAGE KIRUGAVALU HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DIST.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri. V N JAGADEESH, ADV.) AND :

¶11

¶12

THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINNER (EI) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED No.2 SUBDIVISION

¶13

MALAVALLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DIST.

¶14

¶15

SECTION OFFICER CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED No.2 SUBDIVISION MALAVALLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DIST.

¶16

RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Sri. N K GUPTA, ADV.)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION ANNEXURE A DATED 13.10.2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No. 2 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the

¶23

nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.09.2011 in appeal No. 5/2007 passed by the Appellate Authority and the consequential

¶24

notice dated 13.10.2011 – Annexure A.

¶25

Petitioner is a registered consumer of electrical power of 10

¶26

HP for the purpose of sugarcane crushing. On 16.11.2005

¶27

¶28

respondent No. 1 issued back billing for Rs.1,72,609/- as per Annexure D. Aggrieved by this back billing the petitioner filed an appeal before the General Manager (Commercial). Under the impugned order the Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal, set aside the compounding charges and directed the petitioner to pay the back billing amount. Therefore the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

¶30

Respondent No. 1 assessed the back billing as per

¶31

Annexure D at Rs.1,72,609/- including the compounding fee. Respondent No. 1 without issuing a notice or providing an opportunity to the petitioner assessed the back billing as per Annexure D and the same is contrary to Section 126(2) of the Electricity Act. Further a perusal of the assessment order Annexure D specifies that respondent No.1 had only relied on the vigilance report. There is no material on record to show that copy of the vigilance report was furnished to the petitioner. The Appellate

¶32

¶33

Authority without considering this aspect of the matter committed an illegality in passing the impugned order. The Appellate Authority ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶34

For the reasons stated above, the following;

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶37

ii. The impugned order Annexure B dated 30.09.2011 passed by respondent No.2 and the consequent notice Annexure A dated 13.10.2011 are hereby quashed.

¶38

iii. Petitioner is hereby directed to treat the order at Annexure D dated 16.11.2005 as provisional assessment order and file his objections within four weeks from today.

¶39

iv. Respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE.

¶41

LRS.

A M Mallaraje Urs v. the Assistant Executive Engineer ( Ei)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A M Mallaraje Urs v. the Assistant Executive Engineer ( Ei)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a Rahamathulla Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

R G Srinivasa Murthy Vs the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt R S Hamalatha Vs the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S the Grand Castle Vs the Finance Secretary

M/S Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Sri G Nagarajaiah Vs Deputy Registrar of Societies