Allowed

Bangalore Electriciy Supply Company Ltd. v. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2023WP/2383/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitions filed to quash orders setting aside a revised electricity bill and the resulting termination notice. Court held Ombudsman acted impermissibly by relying on a private agency report instead of the KERC-appointed Inspector under Regulation 27. Matters quashed and remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and matter remanded to Respondent No. 1 to consider appeal per Regulation 27; termination notice quashed.

Bangalore Electriciy Supply Company… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2383 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 889 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)

¶10

IN W.P.No.2383/2019

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

BANGALORE ELECTRICIY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT KAVERI BHAWAN, K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. SRIRANGA, SR.COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL, N-3 SUB-DIVISION BESCOM, BASAVESHWARNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶18

ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN NO. 16, C-1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. KARNATAKA, INDIA.

¶19

2 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶20

PANACEA HOSPITAL PVT LTD. INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK BASVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079. REP. HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶21

SRI. LAXMINARASAPPA S/O LATE SRI. NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) NO.8, SUB-DIVISION, D-GROUP LAYOUT SG KAVAL, BANGALORE - 01. AND R/AT NO.1615, 14TH CROSS 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND PHASE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 72.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M.NAGARAJU,ADVOCATE FOR C/R3(CP.No.11875/18); SRI. M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 AND R2 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTIOIN OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN (ANNEXURE-P) AND ETC.

¶25

IN W.P.No.889/2019

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

PROF. A.SRIDHARAN S/O LATE A.PARTHASARATHY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶28

MR. A.BHARATH S/O A.SRIDHARAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶29

3 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶30

MRS. LAVANYA V. W/O A.BHARATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶31

RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT 'SAPTHAGIRI', NO.40 WEST PARK ROAD BETWEEN 13^TH & 14^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.

¶32

MRS. BHAMA SRIDHARAN D/O A.SRIDHARAN W/O SRI. R.GOVINDARAJAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT E-21, FACULTY QUARTERS INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE BENGALURU-560 012.

¶33

…PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE AT: BESCOM K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶37

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE) CORPORATE OFFICE AT:BESCOM K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶38

THE GENERAL MANAGER REVENUE SECTION CORPORATE OFFICE AT:BESCOM K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶39

THE GENERAL MANAGER ACCOUNTS & RETAIL TARIFF SECTION CORPORATE OFFICE AT:BESCOM K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶40

4 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶41

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, WEST CIRCLE OPP. BANGALORE ONE PARK SIDDAIAH PURANIK ROAD BENGALURU-560 079.

¶42

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) C, O & M SUB DIVISION N3, BASAVESHWARANATGAR OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, 3^RD 'E' CROSS WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 3^RD STAGE 1^ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. SRI RANGA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6 (VAKALAT FILED FOR R6 ONLY))

¶45

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTIOIN OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER ANNEXURE-X BEARING NO.2284/24-11-18 DATED 24.11.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 ADDRESSED TO PETITIONER NO.1 DEMANDING TO PAY THE ELECTRICITY DUES OF RS.26,97,925/- PERTAINING TO R.R.NO.N3HT 62 WITHIN 7 DAYS AND ETC.

¶46

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

W.P.No.2383/2019 is filed challenging the order dated

¶49

07.02.2017 passed by respondent No.2, by which he directed the respondent No.1 to consider the case afresh, keeping in mind the representation made by the Electrical Inspector and

¶50

5 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶51

pass suitable orders. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the order passed by respondent No.2 by which, revised bill issued by the BESCOM has been set aside.

¶52

W.P.No.889/2018 is filed challenging the demand notice issued by respondent No.6 at Annexure-X calling upon the petitioner to pay electrical dues of Rs.26,97,925/- which was issued in terms of the revised bill.

¶53

Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.2383/2018 is referred

¶54

to as tenant for the sake of brevity.

¶55

The inspection of the subject premises was conducted by the Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Division, BESCOM, and upon inspection, it was found that, there was 50% slow recording of the meter, vide order report dated 06.11.2014 at Annexure-A. In pursuance of the report, the officer concerned issued back billing to the owner of the subject premises on 05.12.2014. Tenant of the subject premises filed an appeal challenging the back billing before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short 'the CGRF'). The CGRF by order dated 31.08.2016 dismissed the appeal. Against

¶56

6 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶57

which, he filed appeal before Electricity Ombudsman. The Electricity Ombudsman allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Executive Engineer to consider the case afresh keeping in mind the observations made and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law at the earliest. Thereafter, respondent No.3 obtained a report from Central Power Research Institute (for short 'CPRI') dated 05.12.2016, and one from the Transcal dated 31.12.2016 and sought permission from the ombudsman to consider the case of the tenant on the basis of the said reports.

¶58

The Ombudsman in turn approved the request for considering the said reports. In pursuance of the approval granted by the Ombudsman, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order, setting aside the revised bill issued by the officer concerned. Against which W.P.No.2383/2019 is filed.

¶59

Based on the revised bill issued by the officer concerned, the owner of the subject property was issued with the notice of termination of agreement for non-payment of outstanding arrears Rs.26,97,925/-

¶60

7 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶61

Sri.Sriranga, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.2383/2019 would submit that, impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 setting aside the revised bill based on the report submitted by the private agencies is impermissible, since the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise power under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, has issued a notification dated 11.05.2006 appointing Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of Karnataka as third party meter testing agency to witness and certify accuracy of the meter in case of disputed consumer meters in terms of the Regulation 27 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka.

¶62

On the other hand, learned counsel for tenant submits that the CPRI and the private agency have been authorized to conduct inspection, and certify the accuracy of the meter, in light of the office memorandum dated 27.01.2014 issued by the Technical Director BESCOM.

¶63

Learned counsel for the owner would submit that,

¶64

the notice of termination was issued on the basis of revised bill,

¶65

8 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶66

and revised bill having been set aside by the Competent Authority, the impugned notice of termination does not survive for consideration. He further submits that the subject property has been convened in favour of one Sri.L.Manu through registered sale deed dated 29.11.2018, and in case of any demand is made towards arrears of electricity charges, if any, the same shall have to be collected from the said subsequent purchaser.

¶67

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶68

The Regulation 27 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka deals with correctness of meters and specifies that, in the event the consumer disputes the accuracy of the meter, he shall give notice to the licensees, and the licensees shall refer the matter for inspection/testing the meter to the third party meter testing agency approved by the commission under the information given by the consumer. In light of the Regulation 27 of Section 126 of Electricity Act, the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commissioner has appointed the Chief Electrical Inspector to

¶69

9 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶70

Government of Karnataka, as the third party meter testing agency to witness and certify the accuracy of the meter in the case of disputed consumer meters.

¶71

However, respondent No.1 contrary to the Regulation 27 and also the notification issued by the Commission has directed respondent No.2 to consider the case of the tenant, based on the report submitted by the private agency, who are not the competent agency to conduct inspection in terms of the Regulation 27 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka. Hence, impugned order passed by respondent No.2 setting aside the revised bill on the basis of report submitted by an incompetent authority is impermissible and same is not sustainable in law.

¶72

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

W.P.No.2383/2019 is allowed and remanded. W.P.No.889/2019 is allowed.

¶75

The impugned order dated 07.12.2017 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-P and the order dated 18.08.2017

¶76

10 - WP No. 2383 of 2019 C/W WP No. 889 of 2019

¶77

passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-Q are hereby quashed. Matter is remanded to respondent No.1 to consider the appeal filed by the tenant in accordance with the Regulation 27 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka, after notifying the interested persons.

¶78

The revised bill having been set aside by respondent No.2, the notice of termination issued by respondent No.6 in W.P.No.889/2019 at Annexure-X stands quashed.

¶79

Deposit made in the light of the interim order passed by this Court is subject to the outcome of the proceedings before respondent No.1.

¶80

All contentions are kept open.

¶81

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration in view of the disposal of the main matters.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

GPG

Bangalore Electriciy Supply Company Ltd. v. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Electriciy Supply Company Ltd. v. Assistant Executive Engineer, 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

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs the State of Karnataka

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Senior Labour Inspector

Nagaraj K T Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri. T. Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Prakash Ramachandra Sapkal Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, (Kptcl)

Sri S Shivakshankar Vs State of Karnataka