Allowed

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., v. M/S Aavanti Solar Energy Private Limited

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024WP/7387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an interim order by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission regarding late payment surcharge. The Court held that ordering quasi-judicial functions without a judicial member vitiates the order under Rojer Mathew, thus quashing the commission's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 was quashed.

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Vs M/S… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9762 WP No. 7387 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7387 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT STATION ROAD, KALABURGI 585 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S AAVANTI SOLAR ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956/2013, HAVING ITS REGISTED OFFICE AT NO 2898/2, 1ST FLOOR, WARD NO 5 BUS STAND ROAD, SHIGGAON HAVERI DISTRICT 581 205 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶14

KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 16, C-1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 052 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9762 WP No. 7387 of 2024

¶19

ORDER DATED 13/02/2024 (ANENXUER-E) PASSED BY THE R2 IN OP 34 OF 2021 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 in OP No.34/021, by which, the amount claimed by the respondent No.1 in the main prayer is ordered to be paid by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1.

¶23

The respondent No.1 has filed a petition before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission for a direction to the petitioner herein to make payment of Rs.3,35,81,575/- towards late payment surcharge as per the supplementary bills raised along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date of payment till the date of actual payment. The Commission, by interim order, directed the petitioner herein to pay the amount claimed by the respondent No.1.

¶24

Sri S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was passed by the Commission in the absence of judicial member and the same stands vitiated, since the Commission has passed an interim order exercising quasi judicial power. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ROJER MATHEW -VS- SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, (2020) 6 SCC 1.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:9762 WP No. 7387 of 2024

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the Commission taking into consideration the prima facie case made out by the respondent has rightly passed the impugned order which does not warrant any interference.

¶28

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The only point that arise for consideration is that whether the Commission exercising the quasi judicial power in the absence of judicial member could have passed the impugned order.

¶30

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rojer Mathew - vs- South Indian Bank Limited, (2020) 6 SCC 1 has ruled that judicial functions cannot be performed by Technical member, and a Tribunal to have the character of a quasi-judicial body and a legitimate replacement of courts, must essentially possess a dominant judicial character through their members. Hence, judicial orders ought not to be passed in the absence of a Judicial member.

¶31

Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commission in the absence of Judicial member exercising judicial functions stands vitiated. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The Writ petition is allowed.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:9762 WP No. 7387 of 2024

¶36

The impugned order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 in OP No.34/2021 is hereby quashed.

¶37

The respondent No.2 to conclude the proceedings in OP No.34/2021 in accordance with la w without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. The observation, if any made, is only for the purpose of the present petition.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., v. M/S Aavanti Solar Energy Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., v. M/S Aavanti Solar Energy Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. L Geetha Vs the Thasildar

Smt. Madamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hombegowda K N Vs Managing Director

Mrs. Irene Pinto Vs the Additional Commissioner for Transport and Secretary

Smt Thimmakka Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Sridhar Rao Vs P. Vasudeva Acharya