Sri. G v Sathish Reddy Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

SRI. G V SATHISH REDDY ALSO CALLED AS G.V. SATHEESHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, PRESENTLY BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR K H., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) CORPORATE OFFICE AT K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)/ ASSESSING OFFICER, E-12, SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI LOKESHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38131 WP No. 26415 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE PROVISIONAL DEMAND NOTICE, DATED 22.09.2021 BEARING NO.AEE/E-12/AO/21-22/534 AND TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-G THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.07.2024 BEARING NO.AEE (ELE)/E12/AAO/24-25, 856-859 BY ISSUING WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AS THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 126 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging order dated 29.07.2024, at Annexure-G

¶26

passed by respondent no.2, this writ is filed.

¶27

Smt.Subha S, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner had constructed a warehouse at Mahadevapura and obtained power supply to meter bearing RR no.E4HT162 under LT-2A Tariff for industrial purpose. It was submitted, petitioner was paying consumption charges as per said Tariff against bills raised. However, on 22.09.2021 inspection was carried on at petitioner's installation, deviant usage for commercial purpose was noted and a report as per Annexure-R3 was prepared and forwarded to Assessing Officer. In pursuance of same, Assessment Order/demand was issued to petitioner as per Annexure-R4 dated 22.09.2021. Since

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38131 WP No. 26415 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

same was passed without considering objections filed by petitioner and without providing opportunity of hearing, same was challenged before this Court in WP no.21239/2021. On 15.03.2024, this Court quashed assessment order/demand dated 22.09.2021 directing respondent no.2 to consider petitioner's objection filed on 01.10.2021 and to pass orders afresh after providing opportunity of hearing. It was submitted, in pursuance of said remand, respondent no.2 passed order impugned at Annexure-G, without providing opportunity and not even considering objections filed by petitioner. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition.

¶31

On other hand, Sri Rangegowda NR, learned counsel for respondent opposed writ petition. Referring to statement of objections, it was submitted, after remand, petitioner was issued with notice at Annexure-R6 dated 07.05.2024. Though, it was served on petitioner on 09.05.2024, there was no representation. Consequently, impugned order was passed. It was submitted, petitioner's contention that not providing opportunity was unsubstantiated and even contention that objection was not taken into account, would not stand to

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:38131 WP No. 26415 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

reason, as in objections filed, there was no material to substantiate any defence. On said ground, sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶36

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶37

record.

¶38

From above, petitioner's grievance against order at Annexure-G is that same is in violation of principles of natural justice and without considering objections filed by petitioner as per Annexure-D dated 01.10.2021.

¶39

Perusal of order impugned would indicate that though there is reference to objections filed, contents of objections are not adverted to. Besides, it is settled law that reasons cannot be subsequently added to statement of objections. Even if petitioner had not availed opportunity of personal hearing, it was incumbent upon respondent to have adverted to contents of objections and pass reasoned order. Impugned order does not confirm to said requirement. On said ground alone it would require to be quashed.

¶40

Hence, writ petition is allowed . Order dated 29.07.2024 at Annexure-G is quashed. Matter is remitted back to

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38131 WP No. 26415 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

respondent no.2 for fresh consideration. Petitioner to appear before respondent no.2 on 17.10.2025 at 3:00pm without awaiting fresh notice. At that time petitioner would also at liberty to file further objections, if any. Respondent to consider same along with objections already filed at Annexure-D and

¶44

pass reasoned order within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶45

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶46

Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri. G v. Sathish Reddy v the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G v. Sathish Reddy v the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

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

M/S Powergrid Corporation of India Limited Vs L. Venkatappa @ Venkatappa

Sri P N Sridhar Vs the Secretary

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs a S Jayanth

S S B Enterprises Vs the Managing Director

Sri R Somashekara Reddy Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer (Ele)

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs Sri Lokeshappa Alias Lokeshwarappa