Disposed

Sms Enterprise v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Bescom

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024WP/22100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petrol bunk sought mandamus for sanction of 30 kW additional load and commissioning of its solar rooftop PV system. BESCOM resisted citing pending back-billing dues. The Court held the duty under Section 43 of the Electricity Act applies and directed grant of additional load subject to the result of the related writ petition, and commissioning of the SRTPV per the work completion report.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sms Enterprise Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33486 WP No. 22100 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 22100 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMS ENTERPRISE, A SOLE PROPRIETARY CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KESTHURU VILLAGE, KESTHURU PANCHAYAT, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL-561203, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MR.S. MANJUNATH.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2024.11.26 10:57:23 +0530

¶12

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), A GOVERNMENT COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001, E MAIL. [email protected] REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT ADDITIONAL LOAD OF 30KW8 TO THE PETITIONERS INSTALLATION BEARING REVENUE REGISTER (R.R)NO.DBP11838 PER THE APPLICATION FORM AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:33486 WP No. 22100 of 2024

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner in this petition has sought for the

¶22

following prayers:

¶23

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to grant additional load of 30 KW to the petitioner's installation bearing Revenue Register (R.R.) No.DBP-11838 as per the Application Form at Annexure-A.

¶24

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction for the commissioning the petitioner's Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic System (SRTPV) as per the Work Completion Report dated 19^th February *2024 produced at Annexure-B.

¶25

Petitioner is running a Petrol & Diesel Bunk in Kesthur within the limits of Kesthur Panchayat, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and serviced the installation during September, 2016 with a sanctioned load of 15 kW and also installed Solar Panels of 5kW.

¶26

*Corrected V/C/O dated 22.11.2024

¶27

Sd/(KSHJ)

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33486 WP No. 22100 of 2024

¶29

Petitioner applied for additional load of 30kW in 2023 and enhancement of Transformer from 25 kva to 63 kva, the respondent accorded approval of the sanctioned load vide letter dated 19.06.2023 and on receiving the sanction order from BESCOM, the petitioner has carried out the works and submitted work completion report on 30.09.2023. Further, the petitioner also applied for Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic (SRTPV) vide application dated 27.10.2023, the petitioner was accorded approval by Official Memorandum dated 01.12.2023 and on being granted approval, the petitioner entered into Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with BESCOM on 01.02.2024 and utilized the services of VN Solar Solutions for installation of SRTPV system and on 19.02.2024 submitted work completion report.

¶30

After submission of the report, BESCOM inspected

¶31

the site and commission of the plant, on inspection, the BESCOM officials found fault in the meter and issued demand notice seeking for back billing amount of Rs.12,96,901/-. Aggrieved by the demand notice, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.12229/2024 (GM-KEB) and this Court by interim order dated 24.04.2024 directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restore

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:33486 WP No. 22100 of 2024

¶34

the power supply to the subject installation to the petrol bunk, belonging to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the amount demanded in the impugned notice.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent, drawing attention of this court to Regulation 34.01 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka, submits that the procedure for sanction of additional power shall be the same as for a new installation, except, that the dues, if any, shall be cleared before sanction of additional power.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short), puts caveat, that the application for additional load / power has to be construed as same, as for a new installation as per the provisions of Section 43 and within one month of such an application being placed by the owner/occupier, the respondents are to supply electricity.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33486 WP No. 22100 of 2024

¶38

Section 43 of the Act, reads as under:

¶39

43. Duty to supply on request.–

¶40

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

¶41

Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

¶42

Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

¶43

Explanation.–For the purposes of this subsection, “application” means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances. It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33486 WP No. 22100 of 2024

¶45

electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1)

¶46

Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

¶47

(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.

¶48

On perusal of Section 43 of the Act, it envisages that on an application by the owner/occupier of premises, electricity to such premises should be supplied within one month after receipt of the application required for such supply, and the respondent is duty-bound to supply the electricity on the request made by the owner/occupier to the premises in line with the terms of Act.

¶49

It is not in dispute that the back billing claimed by the respondent is subjudice in W.P.No.12229/2024 and this Court has stayed the demand notice and directed the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner, thus,

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:33486 WP No. 22100 of 2024

¶52

the contention of the respondent that additional power would be supplied, only, if all the dues are cleared before sanctioning the additional load/power would not be appraisable to this Court at this stage, for the simple reason that the claim of back billing by the respondent is stayed in W.P. No.12229/2024.

¶53

The petitioner had applied for additional load/power of 30kW and for enhancement of Transformer from 25kva to 63kva and has paid the requisite fees for the additional load/power way back on 01.06.2023 and the respondent had sanctioned additional load/power and also installation of SRTPV. The respondent has statutory duty for providing load enhancement to the petitioner and cannot deny the additional load/power on the ground that the dues are not yet cleared in light of the fact that the dispute regarding demand is stayed and pending in W.P. No.12229/2024 and for the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to grant additional load/ power of 30kva to the petitioner’s installation, which would be always subject to the result of W.P. No.12229/2024 .

¶54

Insofar as second prayer of the petitioner is concerned seeking for commissioning petitioner's Solar Roof

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33486 WP No. 22100 of 2024

¶56

Top Photo Voltaic System (SRTPV) as per the work completion report dated 19.02.2024, since the petitioner and respondent have entered into an agreement on 01.02.2024 with the terms enumerated therein, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the respondents herein to commission the petitioner's SRTPV as per the work completion report dated 19.02.2024.

¶57

With the above said observations, the writ petition

¶58

stands disposed off.

¶59

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶60

Sms Enterprise v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Bescom

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sms Enterprise v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Bescom

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Belaku Karmikara and Samajika Kshemabivrudhi Sangha (Reg) Vs the State of Karnataka

K.V. Nagendra Vs the Assistant General Manager II &

B.S.Deepa Vs the Managing Director

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Thopamma

M.R. Ravi Kumar Vs the Tahsildar

M/S Avant Garde Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka