C K Narotham Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.21462 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

C.K. NAROTHAM S/O LATE C.V. KESHAVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, M/S. ARBORS BY THE LAKE LAYOUT, KYALASANAHALLY VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.G. RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED [(BESCOM) – A A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING], HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL), BESCOM, JIGANI SUB DIVISION, ABOVE CANARA BANK APC CIRCLE, JIGANI LINK ROAD, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560105 Email: [email protected]

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL), VIGILANCE, BESCOM, POST OFFICE ROAD, OPP.: POST OFFICE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

RAMANAGARA-571 511

¶19

Email: [email protected]

¶20

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (EL), BESCOM, JIGANI O & M, BESCOM, JIGANI SUB DIVISION, ABOVE CANARA BANK APC CIRCLE, JIGANI LINK ROAD, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560105 Email: [email protected]

¶21

THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, C/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL), BESCOM, JIGANI SUB DIVISION, ABOVE CANARA BANK APC CIRCLE, JIGANI LINK ROAD, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560105.

¶22

THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (REVENUE)– BESCOM, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL), MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (MESCOM)- HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT MESCOM BHAVANA, KAVURU CROSS ROAD, BIJAI, MANGALORE-575 004.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-6)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R6 PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL R.A.NO.73/2018; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2022 BEARING NO.MAVISA KAM/KANDAAYA MELMANAVI/AA.KAA/5690-92) PASSED BY THE 6^TH RESPONDENT IN APPEAL CASE R.A.NO.73/2018 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority in RA No. 73/2018, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed and revised back billing demand raised by respondent authorities has been confirmed.

¶32

BRIEF FACTS

¶33

The petitioner is a consumer of electricity bearing RR No. KYP16 with a sanctioned load of 25 HP and was originally billed under LT6 tariff. The installation is utilized for water supply and sewage pumping in a residential layout. It is the case of the petitioner that on 21.03.2017, an inspection was conducted by the vigilance authorities, pursuant to which it was alleged that there was a misuse of electricity and incorrect tariff classification. Based on the said inspection, a back billing

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

demand was raised. Subsequently revised by notice dated 03.05.2018 demanding a sum of `14,20,770/-. Aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and deposited 50% of the assessed amount as required under Section 127(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘the Act’ for short). The said appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order leading to the present writ petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is arbitrary, non-speaking and suffers from non-application of mind. It is contended that the petitioner's installation is exclusively used for water supply and sewage purposes in a residential layout and therefore, the applicable tariff is LT6. The authorities have failed to consider the nature of usage and have erroneously sustained the reassessment. It is contended that the Appellate Authority has not rendered any clear finding on the applicable tariff, but has mechanically confirmed the demand raised by the respondent authorities. It is

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

contended that the reassessment and the application of multiple factors have been retrospectively applied for an extended period which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that the electromechanical meter was replaced by electronic tri-vector CT enabled meter on 15.04.2015 and therefore any reassessment, if at all permissible, can be applied only from the said date. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks modification of the impugned order and recalculation of the demand in accordance with law.

¶41

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the inspection conducted by the vigilance authorities revealed misuse of electricity and incorrect tariff classification justifying reassessment. It is contended that the revised demand has been raised in accordance with the provisions of the KERC Electricity Supply and Distribution Code and the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the Appellate Authority upon consideration of the

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

material on record has rightly affirmed the demand and no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶46

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶47

The foundation of the impugned demand notice arises from the inspection dated 21.03.2017, where the petitioner's installation originally classified as LT6 has been treated as misused and classified as LT3 for the purpose of back billing. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's installation is utilized for water supply and sewage pumping in the electricity layout. LT6 of the tariff schedule reads as under :

¶48

“ TARIFF SCHEDULE LT-6

¶49

Applicable to water supply and sewerage pumping installations and also applicable to water purifying plants maintained by Government and Urban Local Bodies/ Grama Panchayats for supplying pure drinking water to residential areas Public Street lights/Park lights of village Panchayat, Town Panchayat, Town Municipalities, City Municipalities /

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Corporations / State and Central Govt. / APMC, Traffic signals, Survelliance Cameras at traffic locations belonging to Government Department , subways, water fountains of local bodies. Also applicable to Streetlights of residential Campus of universities, other educational institutions, housing colonies approved by local bodies/development authority, religious institutions, organizations run on charitable basis, industrial area / estate and notified areas, also applicable to water supply installations in residential Layouts, Street lights along with signal lights including the gateman's shed with associated equipment provided at the Railway level crossing, high mast street lights, Lifts/ Escalators installed in pedestrian road crossing maintained by Government and

¶54

Urban local bodies/ Grama Panchayats independently serviced .

¶55

RATE SCHEDULE

¶56

_Water Supply- _	*LT-6 (a)*
Fixed charges	Rs.55/HP/month
Energy charges	425 Paise/unit
_Public lighting- _	*LT-6 (b)*
Fixed charges	Rs.70/KW/month
Energy charges	585 Paise/unit
Energy Charges for LED/Induction Lighting	485 paise/unit

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

As per the tariff schedule, water supply and

¶60

sewage pumping in residential layout are specifically covered under LT6 category maintained for public utility purposes. The authorities have attracted LT3 which reads as under :

¶61

“ TARIFF SCHEDULE LT-3

¶62

Applicable to Commercial Lighting, Heating and Motive Power installations of Clinics, Diagnostic Centres, X-Ray units, Shops, Stores, Hotels / Restaurants / Boarding and Lodging Homes, Bars, Private guest Houses, Mess, Clubs, Kalyan Mantaps / Choultry, permanent Cinemas/ Semi Permanent Cinemas, Theatres, Petrol Bunks, Petrol, Diesel and oil Storage Plants, Service Stations/ Garages, Banks, Telephone Exchanges. T.V. Stations, Microwave Stations, All India Radio, Dish Antenna, Public Telephone Booths/ STD, ISD, FAX Communication Centers, Stud Farms, Race Course, Ice Cream Parlours, Computer Centres, Photo Studio / colour Laboratory, Photo Copiers, Railway Installation excepting Railway workshop, BMTC / KSRTC Bus Stations excepting Workshop, All offices, Police Stations, Commercial Complexes, Lifts of Commercial Complexes, Battery Charging units, Tyre Vulcanizing Centres, Post Offices, Bakery

¶63

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

shops, Beauty Parlours, Stadiums other than those maintained by Govt. and Local Bodies. It is also applicable to water supply pumps and street lights not covered under LT 6, Cyber cafés, Internet surfing cafes, Call centres, BPO / KPO, Telecom, I.T. based medical transcription centres, Private Hostels not covered under LT-2 (a), Paying guests accommodation provided in an independent / exclusive premises, concrete mixtures (Ready Mix Concrete) units .

¶66

RATE SCHEDULE

¶67

LT-3 (i): Applicable in areas coming under Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Municipal Corporations and other urban local bodies

¶68

Fixed charges	Rs.60 per KW
Energy charges	For 0– 50 units	750 paise/unit
	Above 50 units	850 paise/unit

¶69

Demand based tariff (optional) where sanctioned
load is above 5 KW but below 50 KW
Fixed charges Rs.75 per KW
Energy charges As above

¶70

RATE SCHEDULE

¶71

LT-3 (ii): Applicable in Areas under Village Panchayats

¶72

Fixed charges	Rs.50 per KW per	month
Energy charges	For 0– 50 units	700 paise/unit

¶73

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Above 50 units 800 paise/unit

¶76

Demand based tariff (optional) where sanctioned
load is above 5 KW but below 50 KW
Fixed charges Rs.65 per KW per month
Energy charges As above

¶77

Note: 1. Besides Lighting, Heating and Motive power, electricity supply under this Tariff can also be used for Yard lighting/air Conditioning/water supply in the premises.

¶78

2. The semi-permanent Cinemas should have semi-Permanent Structure with permanent wiring and licence for duration of not less than one year.

¶79

3. Touring Cinemas having an outfit comprising Cinema apparatus and accessories taken from place to place for exhibition of cinematography film and also outdoor shooting units shall be billed under LT-7 Tariff.

¶80

4. A rebate of 20% on fixed charges and energy charges shall be allowed in the monthly bill in respect of telephone Booths having STD / ISD/FAX facility run by handicapped people .

¶81

5. Demand based Tariff at the option of the consumer can be adopted as per Para 1 of the conditions applicable to LT installations.”

¶82

The material on record does not disclose any evidence to establish that the petitioner's activity is

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

commercial in nature so as to attract LT3 tariff. The mere reliance on the vigilance report, without correlating the nature of usage to the tariff classification, is it sufficient to sustain reclassification?

¶87

Further the Appellate Authority while confirming

¶88

the demand, has not recorded clear and reasoned finding justifying the applicability of LT3 tariff nor has it examined whether the petitioner's activity falls under the scope of LT6. The impugned order thus proceeds on a mechanical affirmation of the assessment without adjudicating the core issue of tariff applicability. In light of the LT6 tariff which has been culled out above and the petitioner being classified as under LT6 in light of the petitioner's installation is utilized for water supply and sewage pumping in residential layout and thus the very basis of back billing namely reclassification to LT3 stands vitiated. It is also relevant to state here that the electro mechanical meter was replaced by electronic tri-vector CT enabled meter on 15.04.2015. The application multiplier factor and

¶89

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

accurate assessment would arise only from the said date. The action of the authorities in applying reassessment retrospectively for the period prior to 15.04.2015 is therefore unsustainable and the impugned order fails to consider the correct tariff classification LT6 and the relevant date for assessment i.e.,15.04.2015 and consequently suffers from non-application and absence of cogent reasons. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶94

(ii) The impugned order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority in RA No. 73/2018 is modified.

¶95

(iii) It is held that the reclassification of petitioner’s installation from LT6 to LT3 is unsustainable and the applicable tariff shall be LT6.

¶96

(iv) It is further held that the reassessment by multiplication factor if any shall be only from

¶97

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:15542 WP No. 21462 of 2022

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

15.04.2015, i.e., the date on which the electromechanical meter was replaced by electro tri-vector CT enabled meter.

¶100

(v) Respondent No. 2 is directed to recalculate the charges payable by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the above findings.

¶101

(vi) If any excess amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded in accordance with law. Till such recalculation is completed, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

¶102

Sd/-

¶103

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶104

CKL

¶105

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

C K Narotham v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C K Narotham v. Bangalore 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

Dr Tinkle Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. William D Souza Vs Srimath Annatheshwara Devaru

Smt Beebijan Vs Sri Khaleemulla @ Babu

Mukesh Kumar Choradia Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M/S Shree Sai Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayashree J Shenoy Vs the Secretary