Prestige Tranquillity Apartment Owners Association Ptaoa Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

PRESTIGE TRANQUILLITY APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (PTAOA) BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560049 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.MAJOR VIDHU NATH SAXENA S/O SRI.JITENDRA NATHA SAXENA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. AS PER PROVISION KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT.1972.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., FOR SRI N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED MANAGING DIRECTOR (CONSUMER) K.R. CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) SOUTH 6^TH SUB-DIVISION BESCOM J.P.NAGAR, BENGLURU-560078.

¶16

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, AVALAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560049.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38502 WP No. 25600 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. PADMA S.UTTUR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREUNDER-(i) NO.AEE/AVL/AAO/2025-26/1677 DATED 04.07.2025 IN RESPECT OF R.R.NO.AEH26597 FOR A SUM OF RS.27,866,43 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging orders dated 04.07.2025 passed by respondent no.3 as per Annexures-A to D, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶26

Sri Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Registered Apartment Owners' Association, located at Bommanahalli village. It was submitted that for said apartment complex, petitioner availed power supply from respondents. Apartment Complex had utilities such as Supermarket, Medical Shop, Nandini Milk Booth and Boutique/Tailoring unit catering to Apartment dwellers only. These utilities had individual electricity installations bearing R.R.no.AEH26597, R.R.no.AEH26598, R.R.no.AEH32599 and

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38502 WP No. 25600 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

R.R.no.AEH26600. Since they were catering to Apartment dwellers only, tariff applied was LT-1. On ground that installations were inspected on 21.01.2025 and deviant usage for commercial purpose was noticed, petitioner was issued with notice and before petitioner could submit reply, respondent no.3 had proceeded to pass impugned orders holding usage of power on said installations was ' commercial ', attracting LT-3 tariff and passed an order of assessment for period from February 2024 to January 2025 i.e., 12 months.

¶30

It was submitted, while receipt of notice was not disputed, since petitioner was an Association, reply could not be filed within time, for want of approvals etc. It was submitted, under similar circumstances in case of Prestige Falcon City Apartment Owners' Association at Konanakunte, respondent - Authorities had held power consumption for similar utilities were permitted under LT-1 tariff referring to Clause 3.1.1 of KERC Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in The State of Karnataka. It was contended similar benefit was denied to petitioner. On said ground sought for quashing of same.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38502 WP No. 25600 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Smt.Padma S.Uttur, learned counsel for respondents, on other hand, opposed Writ Petition and at outset submitted, as mentioned in impugned order, petitioner had efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. It was further submitted since Utilities had separate electricity installations, and purpose of said Utilities was commercial, inspection report was taken into account and for want of objections, Assessing Officer had passed impugned order and same was compliant with Rules and Regulations. Therefore, no interference was warranted.

¶34

Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused

¶35

material on record.

¶36

From above, petitioner's grievance against impugned assessment order is Association was unable to avail opportunity and putforth defence by relying upon an order passed in respect of another Apartment Owners' Association and that respondents were discriminating against petitioner. Though, normally, in case of appealable orders, Writ Petitions are not entertained, since in instant case petitioner fairly submitted Association was unable to avail opportunity and seeks to rely

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38502 WP No. 25600 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

on an order passed under similar circumstances, as claimed, it would appear appropriate to remit back matter to Assessing Authority by providing opportunity to petitioner-Association to file objections within specified time limit and direct respondent no.3 to pass orders afresh, instead of relegating petitioner to prefer appeal.

¶40

In view of above, orders at Annexures-A to D are quashed, but, by keeping open all contentions on both sides and by reserving liberty to petitioner to file objections with respondent no.3 on or before 17.10.2025 and subject to outcome, deposit 50% of backbilling demand under respective assessment orders at Annexures-A to D without prejudice to their contentions, to be urged in reply. Thereafter respondent no.3 would require to provide opportunity of hearing, consider objections and pass reasoned order within a period of four weeks in accordance with law. Writ Petition is, accordingly,

¶41

disposed of .

¶42

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶43

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Prestige Tranquillity Apartment Owners Association Ptaoa v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prestige Tranquillity Apartment Owners Association Ptaoa v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalalaru Sagathu Fruits and Vegetables Marukatte Prangana Vs the State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Shri.Madivala Veerabasappa @ M.Veerabasappa

Mr. Roshan Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraja Shastry Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Latha v Vs the Executive Engineer (Ele)

Jnanaganga House Building Co. Operative Society (Regd) Vs Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation (Cesc)