The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging demand notices for electricity tariff upgrade due to unauthorized commercial use. The Court found the petitioner advertised the property as a luxury service apartment, confirming commercial use, and held the notices lawful.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 9612 OF 2020 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.V.AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PADMA.S.UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DEMAND NOTICES DATED 29.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AGAINST 14 RRs BY
CONVERTING CONNECTIONS FROM LT2 TO LT3 AND ALSO BACK BILLING FOR PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS FROM 18.04.2014 TO 18.04.2015 WITH DOUBLE PENAL RATE (ANNEXURE-A1 TO A14)
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
CAV ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:31931 WP No. 9612 of 2020
the petitioner. The petitioner, in turn, responded with another reply dated 30.06.2015 vide Annexure-R11.
Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Appellate Authority after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner dismissed the appeal on 23.03.2020 vide Annexure-R12.
Companies called ‘M.K. International Group’ which had a manufacturing and trading business in Mysuru, Bengaluru and other places with over 500 employees. These employees would often visit Mysuru and in order to accommodate them for their overnight stay, the residential complex was being utilized and, therefore, the allegation that the petitioner was using the premises for commercial purpose was wholly illegal. An argument was also advanced that the procedure as required to be followed had not been followed and the entire proceedings would thus vitiate.
to be a luxury service apartment, which was available for rent at the tariff ranging from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. She has also annexed the extract of the webpage to the objections filed. She further states that in light of the fact that the petitioner was advertising the residential complex as a luxury service apartment, the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have to be rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:31931 WP No. 9612 of 2020
as requested by him, to which also, he submitted his objections on 30.06.2015. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was offered an opportunity against the proposed demands. The petitioner has also availed the remedy of appeal and the Appellate Authority after examining the matter in detail has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was running a commercial enterprise in the premises and this was also clear from the display board that was found outside the guest house.
NC: 2024:KHC:31931 WP No. 9612 of 2020
on the internet and had fixed a tariff for renting out the premises in the residential complex, it cannot be disputed that the premises in question was actually being utilized for commercial purpose and, as a consequence, the tariff applicable would be ‘LT-3’ and not ‘LT-2’. As a result, I find no justification to entertain this writ petition, and the same
is therefore dismissed .
Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2 PK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was rightfully charged for using premises for commercial purposes under LT-3 tariff instead of LT-2.
Whether the demand notices issued against the petitioner were legal and the appeal by the Appellate Authority was correctly dismissed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MUKRAM ULLA KHAN
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE) & CESCOM CONSUMERS, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WEST CIRCLE, BESCOM
N S SANJAY GOWDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
