Disposed

M/S.Shreya Briquetting Bio Energy v. the Hukkeri Rural Electrical

Karnataka HC28 Jun 2021WP/111947/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging an electricity bill. The court observed that the petitioner sought reconnection after a fire, a request disputed by the respondent. Without expressing a view on merits, the court directed the respondent to re-examine the case and pass fresh orders after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. First Respondent directed to re-consider the matter, consider petitioner's submissions, and pass appropriate orders within three months without implementing the impugned bill.

M/S.Shreya Briquetting Bio Energy Vs the Hukkeri Rural… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.111947/2019 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

M/S SHREYA BRIQUETTING BIO ENERGY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, BHIMA S/O RAMA METAGUDLI, AGE : 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O OLD GUDAGANHATTI, POST: YAMAKANAMARADI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE HUKKERI RURAL ELECTRICAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST; BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI GANGAHADR J.M., ADV. FOR R.1) (BY SRI VINAYAKA S.KULKARNI ADV. FOR R.2)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED BILL DATED 14.06.2019 IN NO.HT BILL : 1397/1050 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEUXRE-K AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

: ORDER :

¶18

This writ petition is directed against the electricity bill issued by the 1^st respondent on 14.06.2019 vide Annexure-K intimating the petitioner to pay due amount of Rs.5,82,445/-.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The firm is manufacturing Briquetting Bio Energy. The petitioner has obtained electricity connection from the 1^st respondent after depositing the security amount. In an accident the firm was burnt due to fire on 15.06.2015. Immediately, the petitioner has given a representation to the 1^st respondent on 16.06.2015 vide Annexure-E requesting them to disconnect the electricity supply. Thereafter they have given one more representation dated 10.06.2019 vide Annexure-F requesting the respondent to disconnect the electricity supply.

¶20

¶21

When things stood thus, the 1^st respondent

¶22

has issued Annexure-K to the petitioner demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,82,445/- towards dues of electricity bill. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Sri Shivaraj P.Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the firm after depositing security deposit obtained electricity connection from the 1^st respondent. The said factory was burnt in a fire accident on 15.06.2015. Immediately The petitioner has given a representation to the 1^st respondent to disconnect the electricity supply and thereafter he has not utilized any electricity for running the firm. Even then, the 1^st respondent has issued Annexure-K demanding the petitioner to pay monthly minimum charges. The impugned order vide Annexure-K is issued without authority of law, hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶24

¶25

5. Per contra , Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned

¶26

counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent has submitted that even though the petitioner has submitted a representation vide Annexure-E in the year 2015 for disconnection of electricity supply again he has submitted one more representation in the year 2018 requesting the 1^st respondent to re-connect the electricity supply by making payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the respondent has issued the impugned communication vide Annexure-K demanding monthly minimum charges. The impugned order vide Annexure-K is issued pursuant to their request for reconnection. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case, Hence he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶27

Sri Vinayaka S.Kulkarni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondentState submits that, the state is only a formal party, there is no relief sought against the State.

¶28

¶29

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶31

The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The firm is manufacturing Briquetting Bio Energy. On the request of the firm, the 1^st respondent has given electricity connection after collecting security deposit. As per the conditions, the Firm has to pay minimum charges of Rs.14,910/- per month. Due to the fire accident occurred on 15.06.2015, the entire firm got burnt including the raw-materials. Immediately on 16.06.2015, the petitioner has given a representation to the 1^st respondent requesting him to disconnect the electricity supply. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the petitioner has not utilized any electricity. Therefore he is not entitled for even the payment of minimum monthly charges.

¶32

The case of the respondent is that, in the year 2018, the petitioner has given one more

¶33

¶34

representation to the 1^st respondent to re-connect the electricity supply. On his request, the 1^st respondent has reconnected the same. Hence, the 1^st respondent has issued the present demand notice. Same is disputed by the petitioner.

¶35

Under this circumstance, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the 1^st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter. The petitioner is at liberty to furnish all relevant records to prove their case. The 1^st respondent is directed to consider the same after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The 1^st respondent can give effect to the impugned order vide Annexure-K after passing fresh orders only if the request of petitioner is rejected.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶37

The petitioner is permitted to submit representation along with relevant records to the 1^st respondent within four weeks from today.

¶38

¶39

The 1^st respondent is directed to consider the

¶40

representation along with documents submitted by the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of representation. Till then, the 1^st respondent is directed to restrain from implementing Annexure-K.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

M/S.Shreya Briquetting Bio Energy v. the Hukkeri Rural Electrical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Shreya Briquetting Bio Energy v. the Hukkeri Rural Electrical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Ashok Kumar Shetty, Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Anand S/O. Gangadharswamy Tavagmath Vs the State of Karanataka

Shiddappa B Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nissar S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Jafar Vs Farukh S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Killedar @ Mulla

Sri. Bharamappa S/O Late Gowiera Revanna Vs Smt. Eramma W/O Late Somappa

South Konkan Education Society Vs Maruti S/O Appayya Kadam