Quashed

Sharanappa v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2013WP/81601/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order imposing a back bill via a writ of certiorari, which was dismissed for not exhausting the statutory appeal remedy. The court additionally granted the prayer mandamus directing consideration of the petitioner's application for residential power supply.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari dismissed; Writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the application dated 11.03.2013 for power supply granted.

Sharanappa Vs Assistant Executive Engineer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 81601/2013 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Sri. SHARANAPPA S/O. VENKOBANNA SHRESTRI AGE 36 YEARS R/O. VASAVI NAGAR KARATAGI GANGAVATI TQ., KOPPAL DIST. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY Sri. J S SHETTY, ADV., FOR M/S. J S SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, O&M DIVISION GANGAVATI, TQ. GANGAVATI DIST. KOPPAL.

¶12

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VIGILANCE POLICE STATION GESCOM, KOPPAL.

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) O & M SECTION, GESCOM KARATAGI, GANGAVATI TQ., KOPPAL DIST.

¶15

GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, GULBARGA BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. … RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY Smt. VIDYAVATHI, AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2012 PASSED BY R-3 AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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

¶21

nature of certiorari to quash Annexure A dated 10.12.2012 and Annexure B dated 05.12.2012. In these orders the respondents have

¶22

raised a back bill against the petitioner.

¶23

Against the impugned back bill raised by the respondents

¶24

an appeal is provided under the provisions of the Electricity Act.

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

Without exhausting the remedy of appeal the petitioner is before this

¶27

Court. Therefore this Court cannot interfere with Annexure A and B.

¶28

The other prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application dated 11.03.2013 – Annexure E. This application is filed

¶29

by the petitioner to provide power supply to the residential house of the petitioner.

¶30

No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if they are

¶31

directed to consider the petitioner’s application – Annexure E in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without reference to the respondents.

¶32

SD/JUDGE

¶33

Lrs.

Sharanappa v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharanappa v. Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Srinivas S/O. Prakash Kyarakatti Vs the Commissioner of

Venkappa S/O. Ramappa Maraddi Vs the District Registrar of Societies

Anilkumar Shirahatti S/O Parameshwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rafiqahamad Kagadgar Vs the Karnataka State

M/S Vishal Bar, Chikkodi Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumavva W/O Hanumanthappa Teggin Vs the Managing Director