This order quashes an electricity company order enhancing a penalty for excess power usage due to a conflict between inspection reports and delayed notice issuance, adjusting the deposited appeal amount for future billing.
Impugned order and demand notice quashed; Rs.9,009/- deposited by petitioner to be adjusted in future bills.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7557 WP No. 104986 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.104986 OF 2016 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
MANJUR ALI S/O NAZAMUDDIN LASHKARI AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O: LASKHARI BUILDING MAIGUR ROAD JAMAKHANDI DIST: BAGALKOT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.15 12:15:27 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1 & R3; R2 & R4 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:21.05.2016 IN BEARING NO.f.PÉ.r/¸À.PÁ.D(«)/».¸À/15-16/595-
96, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-H; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 21.05.2016 passed by respondent No.1, who has declined to entertain an appeal filed by the petitioner and has further enhanced penalty in the petitioner’s appeal.
and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
the site and found that the petitioner was using 3.95 K.W. electricity contrary to the permission of 2 K.W electricity. The date of inspection is 24.01.2012. Based on the rating report, the respondents issued impugned notice vide Annexure –C calling upon the petitioner to pay arrears of Rs.18,018 on the ground that he has used excess load of 1.95 K.W.
of respondents have raised the demand on 19.02.2013
i.e., almost after thirteen months.
excess power to an extent of 0.5 K.W. Therefore, the
rating report dated 24.01.2012 appears to be doubtful.
the petitioner was found to be guilty of using excess 0.5 K.W. Having imposed penalty of Rs.5,051/- as per
Annexure –A, the Officials of respondents have failed to substantiate as to how that rating report dated 24.01.2012 was not reflected while issuing varadi dated 31.01.2012. In view of these significant details, the demand notice dated 19.02.2023 as per Annexure –C and the order passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure – H
are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set-aside.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 21.05.2016 in bearing No.G.KE.D/SA.KA.A (VI) HI.S/1516/595-96 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure – H and the impugned demand notice dated 19.02.2013 issued by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition assailing an order enhancing penalty for electricity arrears should be allowed.
Whether the impugned order and demand notice should be quashed due to credibility gaps.
Whether the petitioner's deposited amount should be adjusted in future bills.
MANJUR ALI
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
