Allowed

H Abbas v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elect)

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2022WP/17249/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petition quashing back billing order and appellate order related to unauthorized excess electricity load. Held petitioner never admitted excess usage despite unplugged appliances and appellate remedy was directory not mandatory.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order and back billing communication quashed; respondent directed to refund statutory deposit within four weeks.

H Abbas Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elect) — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.17249/2018 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H ABBAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O HAMMID HAJEE, ILANTHILA VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SARAT CHANDRA BIJAI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT), O & M, MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., BELTHANGADY SUB-DIVISION, BELTHANGADY, D.K. DISTRICT-574 214.

¶13

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VIGILANCE CELL OF MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., ALLAWAR, MANGALURU-575 002.

¶14

SUPPLEMENTAL ENQUIRY (ELECTRICITY) & APPELLATE AUTHORITY, O & M, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE, HINKAL, MYSORE-570 017.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.G. PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 17.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R-2 I.E., ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2016 PASSED BY THE R-3 I.E., ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPOSITION OF BACK BILLING DATED 04.01.2013/05.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-1 I.E., ANNEXURE-B, AS NON-VALID AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner obtained temporary connection for 2KW load under tariff LT7 bearing No.KTL 285. The Vigilance Cell of MESCOM, Mangalore conducted an inspection on the petitioner's premises and the petitioner was found unauthorisedly using the excess load of 4355 watts. Based on the inspection report, the 1st respondent raised back billing of Rs.76,091/- as specified under Condition No.42.01 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution License in the State of Karnataka. Against the said back billing, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Electricity Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 (for short `Regulation, 2004')

¶21

¶22

The 3rd respondent - Appellate Authority by order dated 24.9.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming the back billing raised by the 1st respondent demanding a sum of Rs.76,090.56 towards unauthorised use of excess load of 4355 watts. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the inspection report clearly indicates that the electrical appliances were unplugged and in the absence of any material that the petitioner has unauthorisedly used the excess load of 4355 watts, the impugned demand of Rs.76,090.56 made by the 1st respondent is without any substance. He further submits that the Appellate Authority, ignoring this material aspect, only on the wrong premise that the petitioner has admitted the inspection report has dismissed the appeal.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that against the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, an efficacious and alternative remedy of an appeal is provided under Regulation 21 of the Regulations 2004. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner having

¶25

¶26

accepted the inspection report without any protest cannot deny that he has unauthorisedly used excess load to an extent of 4355 watts. He further submits that on inspection of the meter installed in the petitioner's premises, it was found that there is excess drawing of power to an extent of 4355 watts beyond the sanctioned loan.

¶27

I have examined the submissions of the learned

¶28

counsel for the parties.

¶29

The Vigilance Cell of MESCOM, Mangalore on

¶30

inspection found that the electrical appliances in the petitioner's premises were found unplugged, but however, submitted a report stating that the petitioner was unauthorisedly using the excess load of 4355 watts. Based on the inspection report, the 1st respondent raised the back billing for Rs.76,090.56 towards unauthorisedly using the excess load of 4355 watts. The inspection report clearly indicates that the electrical appliances, which were found in the petitioner's premises were unplugged and in the absence of any material that the petitioner unauthorisedly used the excess load of 4355 watts, the demand made by the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Merely

¶31

¶32

because the petitioner has not disputed the inspection report, it would not establish that the petitioner was unauthorisedly using the excess load of 4355 watts in the absence of any material.

¶33

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 that on inspection of the meter installed in the petitioner's premises, it was found that the petitioner had drawn the excess power to an extent of 4355 watts cannot be accepted since the impugned demand notice or the inspection report does not indicate that upon reading of the meter, it was found that the petitioner was using the excess load of 4355 watts.

¶34

Regulation 21 of the Regulations, 2004 specifies that any complainant, who is aggrieved by the non-redressal of his grievances by the Forum may himself or through his representative make a representation to the Ombudsman exercising jurisdiction over the licensee within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order of the Forum. A reading of the said provision clearly indicates that it is not mandatory, but only directory in nature and in the absence of any disputed question of fact, the present petition without availing the remedy provided

¶35

¶36

under the Regulation 21 of Regulations 2004 is held to be maintainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) Writ petition is allowed:

¶39

ii) The impugned order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent at Annexure-C and also the impugned communication dated 4.1.2013/5.1.2013 issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure-B are hereby quashed.

¶40

iii) The respondent No.3 is hereby directed to refund the

¶41

statutory deposit made, if any, by the petitioner within a four weeks from the date of certified copy of this order.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

bkm

H Abbas v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elect)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H Abbas v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elect)

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.M. Naik Vs State by Deputy Superintendent

Sri B T Ramesh Vs State by Deputy Superintendent of Police

Imad Kolla Vs State by Sirsi Town Ps

M. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Aswatha M Vs Smt Chandrakala