Dismissed¶48

Sri Pascal Dias v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec)

Electricity tariff – coffee plantation – reclassification from LT-4(a) to LT-4(c)

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025WP/2579/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MESCOM back billing; IP set 5 HP sanctioned 15.12.1993 under LT-4(a); 2013 inspection found 7.5 HP usage; Tariff Order dated 31.07.1996 reclassifying coffee plantations to LT-4(c); Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum order dated 19.03.2021; Electricity Ombudsman Appeal No. OMB/M/G-503/2022 order dated 19.06.2024; demand notices dated 22.02.2019 (Rs. 2,05,646/-) and 04.01.2025 (Rs. 4,76,953/-); Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Koppa, Chikkamagaluru; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Tariff Order dated 31.07.1996 has categorically brought coffee plantations under LT-4(c); tariff classification is not a contractual term but a statutory consequence, and it applies automatically. ¶44

Sri Pascal Dias Vs the Assistant Executive… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent could levy tariff under LT-4(c) on the petitioner's IP set, originally sanctioned in 1993 under LT-4(a) for irrigation of areca garden, following the reclassification of coffee plantations by the Tariff Order dated 31.07.1996, and whether such reclassification could be applied after decades without notice. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner admitted the 2.5 HP load enhancement and paid Rs. 54,157/-; the existence of ongoing bills, regular communication from MESCOM and payment of arrears, absent any suppression by the respondents, weakened the petitioner's case that he was unaware of the reclassification and that payment was made without notice.

¶47

Key takeaways

The Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman considered the entire oral and documentary material and rightly arrived at the conclusion that the demand made is justified; their concurrent findings do not warrant interference, and the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Electricity tariff - coffee plantation - reclassification from LT-4(a) to LT-4(c) - Tariff Order dated 31.07.1996 categorically brought coffee plantations under LT-4(c); tariff classification is not a contractual term but a statutory consequence that applies automatically. Petitioner's IP set (5 HP) sanctioned on 15.12.1993 under LT-4(a); 2013 inspection revealed use of 7.5 HP against sanctioned load, leading to back billing charges partly paid (Rs. 54,157/-). Demand notice dated 22.02.2019 for Rs. 2,05,646/- upheld by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (order dated 19.03.2021) and Electricity Ombudsman (order dated 19.06.2024 in Appeal No. OMB/M/G-503/2022); subsequent demand notice dated 04.01.2025 for Rs. 4,76,953/- issued. Petitioner's admission of 2.5 HP excess load, ongoing bills and payment of arrears negated the plea of want of notice. Concurrent findings of the fora did not warrant interference; writ petition dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:51481 WP No. 2579 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.2579 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI PASCAL DIAS S/O SRI APPLU DIAS @ APPU DIAS, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OLV ESTATE, BINTRAVALLI, BERUKUDIGE POST, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577126.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAVIKUMAR N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), O & M SUB-DIVISION, MESCOM KOPPA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577126.

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE CHAIRPERSON, CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM (CGRF) O & M CIRCLE, MADHUVANA LAYOUT, MESCOM, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI PRASHANT T. PANDIT, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; V/O. DATED 30.01.2025 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT - ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) O & M SUB-DIVISION MESCOM, KOPPA DATED

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:51481 WP No. 2579 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

22.02.2019 BEARING NO.SA KA NI EM: SA LE AA: KOPPA: 2018-19: 4060-61 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question (i) demand notice dated 22.02.2019 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mangaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (‘MESCOM’ for short) demanding .** 2,05,646/- (ii) order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (‘Consumer Forum’ for short) (iii) order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal No. OMB/M/G-503/2022 (iv) subsequent demand notice dated 04.01.2025 demanding ** .4,76,953/-.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51481 WP No. 2579 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

BRIEF FACTS

¶31

The petitioner is the owner of agricultural lands in Bintravalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Koppa Taluk, wherein he obtained an IP set power connection of 5 HP on 15.12.1993 under LT-4(a). In 2013 upon enhancement of load, the inspection reflected that the petitioner was using 7.5 HP as against the sanctioned 5 H.P leading to the back billing charges and arrears which he partly paid. In the meanwhile, under the Tariff Order dated 31.07.1996, coffee plantations were reclassified from LT-4(a) to LT4(c) and billings thereafter were issued accordingly. The petitioner questioned the demand notice dated 22.02.2019 for ** .2,05,646/- before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum on 19.03.2021 rejected the petition, the appeal preferred before the Electricity Ombudsman was also dismissed and the billing under LT-4(c) was held to be justified. The subsequent demand notice dated 04.01.2025 for ** .4,76,953/- is now issued. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings and the tariff

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:51481 WP No. 2579 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

classification and the notice issued on 04.01.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶37

the I.P set was sanctioned in 1993 for LT-4(a) for irrigation of areca garden, agricultural lands and the first respondent could not levy tariff under LT-4(c) after decades without notice. It is submitted that the pump though is existing in Sy. No.229, it is not used for irrigating coffee plantations situated at a higher elevation but is used only for areca garden in Sy. Nos.204, 61/P1, 49 and 50. It is submitted that the Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman mechanically upheld the demand without examining factual usage and without considering the correct facts.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that under the Tariff Order dated 31.07.1996, coffee plantations were expressly reclassified under LT4(c) and the billings are issued accordingly since 1996.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51481 WP No. 2579 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Petitioner’s land in Sy. No. 229 contains coffee estate in 15 acres and inspection reflect that the petitioner was using 7.5 HP against sanctioned 5 HP. Thereafter back billing charges were issued, which the petitioner has paid partly. It is submitted that both the authorities have upheld LT-4(c) after due consideration and the concurrent findings on facts does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶42

This Court has carefully considered the

¶43

contentions urged by the parties and perused the material on record.

¶44

The Tariff Order dated 31.07.1996 has categorically brought the coffee plantations under LT-4(c). The tariff classification is not a contractual term but is a statutory consequence, it applies automatically. Both Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman, which stands constituted under the Regulation 2004 have upheld (i) tariff applicability under LT-4(c) and (ii) arrears. The

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51481 WP No. 2579 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

petitioner has admitted about 2.5 HP enhanced and paid

¶48

`. 54,157/-. This establishes that there is on-going bill, regular communication from MESCOM and in the absence of any suppression by the respondents and payment of arrears weakens the petitioner’s case that he was not aware and that the payment was made without any notice. The Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman have considered the entire material and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the demand made is justified. The manner in which the Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman have considered the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is

¶49

dismissed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶52

CKL

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri Pascal Dias v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pascal Dias v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gowramma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri Dyavappa, Vs the Prl. Secretary

Smt N Anusuya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt R. Shantha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

T Sharanappa Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Sri N Narasimhaiah Vs the Government of Karnataka