Allowed

M/S G K Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Superintendent Engineer

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024WP/6746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a BESCOM demand for additional load charges because the petitioner failed to enter a specific supply agreement for the additional sanctioned load despite installation of a meter. The demand was held arbitrary and illegal; deposited amount to be adjusted against future consumption.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 04.02.2019 and demands raised from 15.01.2018 quashed. Amount deposited to be adjusted towards future consumption charges.

M/S G K Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs Superintendent Engineer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11397 WP No. 6746 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.6746 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

M/S. G.K. ISPAT PVT. LTD., HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.100 TO 106, 4^TH PHASE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, MALUR - 563 130. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. ABHIMANYU DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (COM. O&M) BESCOM, KOLAR CIRLCE, KOLAR - 560 101.

¶10

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) (COM. O&M), BESCOM, MALUR SUB DIVISION, OPPOSITE TO COURT, BANGALORE ROAD, MALUR - 563 130.

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) (COM. O&M) BESCOM, CHAMPION REEFS, K G F - 563 117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE LETTER DATED 04.02.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1. ISSUED BY THE (BSCOM) R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS IT IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL.QUASH OR SET ASIDE SET ASIDE THE DEMANDS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FROM 15.01.2018 TILL DATE, VIDE ANNEXURE-B (COLLY) S IT IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:11397 WP No. 6746 of 2022

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner entered into a Power Supply Agreement for energy supply with the respondents - Company on 15.09.2014 for a sanctioned load of 200KVA. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to sanction an additional power supply of 150KVA. The application submitted by the petitioner was accepted, subject to terms and conditions, including the installation of necessary equipment under the self-execution scheme. The petitioner also deposited a total sum of Rs.10,117/- as security deposit with the respondent.

¶18

Thereafter, the respondent – BESCOM raised a bill, claiming an additional sum as Audit Short Claim, as penal charges for the additional load sanctioned based on the rating report.

¶19

The respondent – BESCOM then raised a bill stating that the petitioner had not utilized the sanctioned load of 350KVA. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 and deposited 50% of the demanded amount before the Appellate Authority. By order dated 04.02.2019, respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,36,053/- and dismissed the appeal, stating that it did not fall under the purview of Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act. However, it could be adjudicated under Section 142 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations 2004. Challenging this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:11397 WP No. 6746 of 2022

¶22

The petitioner's counsel submits that in the absence of a sanction to avail additional load, the demand made on the basis of additional load is contrary to the regulations contained in the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondents contends that after the additional load was sanctioned, the petitioner installed the meter cubical to avail of the additional load. Therefore, it is deemed that the additional load was sanctioned in favor of the petitioner, and accordingly, the petitioner is liable to pay the contract demand for the sanctioned load of 350KVA. The counsel further argues that the petitioner has deposited the arrears of tariff in three installments without any demur, hence the present petition is not maintainable.

¶24

Chapter-IV of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees deals with the General Procedure for Arranging Power Supply. Regulation-4.03 deals with Estimate and Power Sanction. Sub-clause (ii) states that before the work of laying the service line is undertaken, the applicant must comply with the requirements listed therein. One such requirement is that the petitioner shall execute an agreement in favor of BESCOM. Sub-clause (iv) states that if the requirements of 4.03(ii) are not fulfilled within the stipulated time and the applicant is not ready to avail themselves of power supply, the application shall be treated as cancelled, and the licensee's responsibility to pay penalties for failure to provide power supply within the specified period ceases. This procedure is applicable for the grant of sanction of additional load as stated under Regulation-34.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:11397 WP No. 6746 of 2022

¶27

In the instant case, although the additional load of 150KVA was sanctioned, the petitioner had not entered into an agreement with BESCOM for the supply of additional load. Clause (b) of sub-clause (ii) of Regulation 4.03 notes that when additional power is being availed, the new agreement shall be for the aggregate power, and the earlier agreements shall stand cancelled. In this case, despite the sanction of an additional load of 150KVA and the installation of the cubical meter as per the letter sanctioning the additional load, the parties had not entered into the required agreement as mandated under Clause (b) of sub-clause (ii) of Regulation 4.03.

¶28

Regulation 4.08 deals with the Commencement of Supply, stating that when a power sanction letter is issued by the Distribution Licensee upon receipt of an application for the supply of electricity and after the execution of the required agreement by the applicant, and upon approval of the applicant’s installation, the Engineer shall commence supply of power to the applicant, with intimation provided to the applicant. In the instant case, since no agreement was entered into between the parties for the supply of additional load of 150KVA, there is no basis for inferring that the Engineer commenced the supply of power for the additional load. Despite the petitioner having installed the cubical meter as required under the communication sanctioning additional load, it cannot be said that the petitioner availed of the additional sanctioned load in the absence of an agreement between the parties. Therefore, the bills demanding amounts based on the contract agreement for the sanctioned load of 350KVA are contrary to the regulations

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:11397 WP No. 6746 of 2022

¶31

contained in the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees.

¶32

The petitioner addressed a communication dated 13.02.2018 to the 2nd respondent, stating that they had not utilized the earlier sanctioned load of 200KVA and had not added any new machines, among various other reasons, seeking a waiver of the penal charges levied. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a communication dated 17.02.2018, calling upon the petitioner to pay the demand charges as per the sanctioned load and consumption, failing which the installation would be liable for disconnection. To prevent the disconnection of power supply, the petitioner deposited the amount in three installments. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has waived their right to challenge the demand made by the 2nd respondent. In view of the above, the petitioner would not be liable to pay the bill amount based on the contract agreement for the additional sanctioned load of 150KVA.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 04.02.2019 issued by the 1^st respondent at Annexure-A and the demand raised by the 2^nd respondent from 15.01.2018 till date at Annexure-B series is held to be arbitrary and illegal. The amount deposited by the petitioner is to be adjusted to future consumption charges which the petitioner is liable to pay.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

GRD

M/S G K Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S G K Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Superintendent Engineer

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

Syed Mufeez Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar M Vs Radha M

The Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri G Chidanandaswamy

Sharada Auto Union (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Pavan Kumar, Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Srinivasamurthy. P. C. Vs State of Karnataka