Partly allowed

Srikrishnadevaraya Hacheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024WP/21051/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the disconnection order but held that the prior show cause notice and memo must be treated as formal notices requiring a fresh opportunity of hearing under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act. The writ was disposed of with directions for respondents to decide the matter fairly after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; parties directed to follow natural justice and pass fresh orders after hearing.

Srikrishnadevaraya Hacheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gulbarga… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 21051 OF 2013 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. KRISHNADEVARAYA HACHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, RUDRAPUR VILLAGE, GINIGERA POST, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL, BY ITS MANAGER, SHRI. A. SRINIVASARAO S/O. SUBBARAO, AGE: 44 YEARS, 583101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADV. AND SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV. AND SRI. DEEPAK C. MAGANUR, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, GULBARGA, BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O & M, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583101.

¶12

MANJANNA E

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, GULBARGA, BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), O & M SUB DIVISION, MUNIRABAD, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583101.

¶15

GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, GULBARGA, BY ITS VIGILANCE POLICE STATION, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL, BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PIN CODE: 583101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

¶21

A. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 8/5/2013 BEARING NO. SAKANIA(VI)/SALEA/HI.SA./KA.15/179-83 AND DISCONNECTION MEMO DATED 9/5/2013 BEARING NO. AEE/AE/MRB/F-15/1989-92, ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND E RESPECTIVELY.

¶22

AA. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2013, IN NO. SAKAANI AA/SAAA/HI.SA/KA.15/5A3-47, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶23

B. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/3/2013 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AT THE EARLIEST POINT OF TIME AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶29

Heard learned counsel Sri.Ravi S. Balikai for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.Anoop Deshpande for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶30

The petitioner is a private limited company in

¶31

the name of Srikrishnadevaraya Hacheries Pvt. Ltd., and obtained LT installation RR No.17 and due to shortage of

¶32

power consumption capacity, had obtained higher power connection in RR No.25 and then 30 from the respondents. The respondents changed the connection from LT to HT with a capacity of 350 KVA in RR No.MHT-31. This being the state of affairs, petitioner extended its business to Sy.No.25A which is in the name of the Managing Director Sri.E. Bhaskar Rao and electricity connection was taken from GESCOM meter in Sy.No.24 A, B, C & D as also the Sy.No.25A which is adjacent. The respondents imposed penalty whenever the consumption of power was more

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶34

than 350 KVA by the petitioner and the said penalty was paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Authorities. At the instance of respondent No.2 that the consumption of electricity is more than the sanctioned load, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 to increase the power load from existing 350 KVA to 650 KVA. The said representation was made to respondent No.1 which was forwarded to the said respondent No.2 and was under process.

¶35

This being the said of affairs, when the application was pending for consideration for increase of the power load, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 08.05.2013 and demanded petitioner to pay back billing charges of Rs.77,86,351/- within thirty days in view of excess unauthorisedly used power in adjacent location. On the very next day, i.e., on 09.05.2013, a disconnection memo was issued indicating that the HT installation MHT31 would be disconnected and within a period of less than

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶37

thirty days, the disconnection memo was received by the

¶38

petitioner.

¶39

As there were livestock in the hatchery unit, petitioner made representation on the very same day i.e., on 09.05.2013 requesting the respondents to provide reasonable time to make good the payment of excess power utilised and would secure proper electricity supply upon legal authorisation, and requested not to disconnect the power connection to the units. Since the memo was issued for disconnection, petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, left with no other alternative to seek quashing of the notice dated 08.05.2013 and the disconnection memo dated 09.05.2013 and for a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. The writ petition came to be filed on 14.05.2013 and an order came to be passed on 16.05.2013, whereby an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶41

The petitioner in accordance to the order of this Court deposited an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and made an application/representation to the respondents on 21.05.2013 by producing the copy of the interim order along with deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- by way of cheque. Though the petitioner deposited the amount as ordered by this Court, provided the copy of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent-Authorities passed the final order pursuant to the disconnection memo and the show cause notice on 20.06.2013. However, later, it appears that the power has been restored in view of the deposit made by the petitioner and copy of the interim order having been furnished. The same continues till date.

¶42

In view of the final order having been passed on 20.06.2013, petitioner got amended the writ petition by filing an application. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1/2013 seeking amendment to the writ petition to incorporate the subsequent final order passed by the respondent No.2 on 20.06.2013 and filed the copy of the said impugned order

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶45

dated 20.06.2013 and sought to quash the said final order vide Annexure-F. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶47

Nos.1 to 3 Sri.Anoop Deshpande vehemently contends that the petitioner had secured electricity installation connection in RR No.MHT-31 situated in Sy.No.25 of Rudrapur village, taluk and district Koppal, but, however in the guise of using of the power supply connection in Sy.No.25, the petitioner has been using the power supply connection in an unauthorised location and units installed in Sy.No.25A. Therefore, this supply of electricity connection to Sy.No.25A is unauthorised and without permission from the Authorities, hence, after due inspection by the Assistant Executive Engineer and after securing the necessary documents from the petitioner, it

¶48

was realised that the electricity connection was unauthorisedly used in Sy.No.25A, which was not permitted or granted or sanctioned by the respondents.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶50

Therefore, he contends that no illegal act has been committed by the respondents. The disconnection order passed by the respondents is in accordance with law more specifically Rule 42.05 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka which is notified in the Karnataka Gazette dated 17.06.2006. Therefore, the respondents contend that the disconnection is well within the powers and there is no violation of any of the Rules as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained a valid electricity supply connection in RR No.MHT-31 situated in Sy.No.25 of Rudrapur village. Having taken initially, the power supply was 350 KVA and thereafter got it enhanced to 650 KVA by increasing the power load. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner had unauthorisedly taken the power connection to adjacent site Sy.No.25A,

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶53

which is seriously disputed by the petitioner. These factual aspects would have to be gone into by verifying the documents and records and after giving opportunity to the petitioner, it appears that the show cause notice issued by the respondents is dated 08.05.2013 and immediately on the very next day, a demand notice and disconnection memo was issued on 09.05.2013 by the respondents without providing substantial amount of time for the petitioner to put-forth the case and defence and substantiate by virtue of the documents or reply. In this regard, it is necessary to extract Section 126(3) of the amended Electricity Act No.26 of 2007, which reads as under:

¶54

“126. Assessment.-(1) xxx

¶55

(2) xxx

¶56

(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the Assessing Officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing of such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service

¶57

10 -

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶59

of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.”

¶60

In view of this provision, it clearly states that

¶61

the person, on whom an order has been served under subsection (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the Assessing Officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of provisional assessment. In the present case, no such opportunity has been given to the petitioner, infact, on the very next day, an order is passed for disconnection by issuing a memo of disconnection. Subsequently, a representation was made on the very same day, requesting the respondents not to disconnect in view of livestock in the hatchery unit of the petitioner.

¶62

Be that as it may, it appears that though an order has been passed on 20.06.2013 subsequently, which is produced and sought to be quashed by Annexure-F, the

¶63

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶64

petitioner in compliance of the interim order of this Court, has deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondentAuthorities and it is for the respondents now to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The final order which is issued on 20.06.2013, the show cause notice dated 08.05.2013 and the disconnection memo dated 09.05.2013, shall be treated as show cause notice to the petitioner and he shall be provided an opportunity to reply to the said show cause notice by furnishing all details with regard to the allegations made by the respondents in the said show cause notice of excess power and illegal and unauthorised power used in the adjacent unit, if any. The respondents shall upon receipt of the said reply and an opportunity being provided to the petitioner of being heard, thereafter pass suitable orders on the said show cause notice and disconnection memo. In the meanwhile, it appears that though the Annexure-F dated 20.06.2013 was issued, it is not acted upon. Power supply is infact continuing in the petitioner’s unit which shall continue till

¶65

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶66

such orders are passed and after giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner.

¶67

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶70

ii. The impugned order at Annexure-F dated 20.06.2013 is hereby quashed. The show cause notice dated 08.05.2013 and the disconnection memo dated 09.05.2013 shall be treated as an intimation to the petitioner who shall in turn reply to the same and upon giving a fair opportunity of hearing, the respondents shall decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶71

iii. In pursuance to the representation dated 09.05.2013 given by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to file an additional reply or objection to the show cause notice

¶72

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14904 WP No. 21051 of 2013

¶73

which shall be treated as reply and dealt with in accordance with law by the respondents.

¶74

iv. The petitioner shall reply to the show cause notice along with documents additional, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶75

v. Ordered accordingly.

¶76

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶77

KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Srikrishnadevaraya Hacheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikrishnadevaraya Hacheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company

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

Gg Finance Corporation (R) Vs Shyalaja S

Gg Finance Corporation (R) Vs Deepashree T

Sri Prashantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anand S/O Basalingappa Maigur Vs the Managing Director

Maruti Devappa Naik Vs Union of India

Shri Prashant Ravindranath Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka