Allowed

Sri Manjunath v. Vs the Chief Engineer (Ele.)

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023WP/14038/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged orders back-billing power at commercial rates for industrial activities, citing lack of personal hearing. The High Court issued certiorari to quash the challenged orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued to quash impugned orders dated 14.09.2020, 17.05.2021, and 27.08.2019; matter remitted to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration within three months after providing a personal heari

Sri Manjunath v Vs the Chief… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 14038 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 14038 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MANJUNATH V S/O VARADARAJU P, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, M/S VERNA COATS (P) LTD., NO.36-37, 21^ST CROSS, S J KAVAL, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560091

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE.) MESCOM, MANGALORE ZONE AND DESIGNATED APPELLATE AUTHORITY, 1^ST FLOOR, SHAKTHI SOUDHA, BANDHEL CIRCLE, BANDHEL, MANGALORE-575015

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) N-4, SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, PEENYA, BANALORE-560058.

¶16

THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 14038 of 2021

¶19

METER TESTING DIVISION, BESCOM, PEENYA, BANGALORE-560058

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.H.V. DEVARAJU ., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING ¸ÀASÉå ªÀÄÄEA/ªÀÄÄAªÀ/ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«/2020-21-4561-63 DATED 14.09.2020 AND REPLY/ORDER BEARING NO. ªÀÄÄEA-ªÀÄA.ªÀ/¤¯É/¯ÉC/»¸À2/2021-22/1155-57, DATED 17.05.2021 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES F AND H AND ALSO THE ORDER BEARING NO. ¸ÀASÉ: ¸ÀPÁ¤EA(«)/J£ï-4/ªÀå(vÁA)/2019-20/1162, DATED 27.08.2019 PASSED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶26

following reliefs:

¶27

a. issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing ¸ÀASÉå ªÀÄÄEA/ªÀÄÄAªÀ/ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«/2020-21-456163 dated 14.09.2020 and reply/order bearing no ªÀÄÄEA-ªÀÄA.ªÀ/¤¯É/¯ÉC/»¸ À -2/2021-22/1155-57 , dated

¶28

17.05.2021 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexures F and H and also the order bearing no ¸ÀASÉ: ¸ÀPÁ¤EA(«)/J£ï-4/ªÀå(vÁA)/2019-20/1162 ,

¶29

dated 27.08.2019 passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 14038 of 2021

¶32

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to reconsider the matter afresh and to pass fresh order by giving personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

c. Issue any other appropriate order, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity.

¶34

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner is carrying out industrial activities, the respondent has considered the same to be commercial in nature and back-billed the power used by the petitioner at commercial rates.

¶35

Sri.Srinivasa K., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the premises, the petitioner is carrying out packaging activity which is part of the manufacturing activity which has not been taken into consideration by the respondent. He further submits that the petitioner has not been provided with a personal hearing by respondent No.2 before the impugned order was passed.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 14038 of 2021

¶38

A perusal of the papers indicates that though notice

¶39

has been issued, no such personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, thereby, depriving the petitioner from placing the facts before the respondent No.2. Hence, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) A certiorari is issued. The orders dated 14.09.2020 and 17.05.2021 at Annexures - F and H respectively passed by respondent No.1 as also the order dated 27.08.2019 at Annexure - E passed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed.

¶43

iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

PRS

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98

Sri Manjunath v. Vs the Chief Engineer (Ele.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath v. Vs the Chief Engineer (Ele.)

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

Smt. Geetha Devi R Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri M Siddeshwarappa

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri. M. Lakshmikantha

Ammayyamma Vs M Krsihne Gowda

Sri. K. C. Mallikarjuna Vs the State of Karnataka

India Awake for Transparency Vs the Governor Reserve Bank of India