IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.38739/2013 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP BY ITS THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) E 2 SUB DIVISION, No.324/1 MILLERS TANK, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 052 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV.] AND:
1 . M/s MANTHRI ALTIUS APARTMENTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION REP BY ITS TREASURER, SRI ASHWINI PAI No.17, RAJABAVAN ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 2 . CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK A, CORPORATE OFFICE, BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001 REP BY ITS CHAIRPERSON …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT.DEEPIKA MAHESH, ADV. FOR SRI BADRI VISHAL, ADV. FOR R-1;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.04.2016 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-J DATED 27.12.2012 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.12.2012 passed by respondent No.2 mainly on the ground that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (CGRF) has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint relating to the demand made in respect of unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘Act’ for short).
2. Learned counsel Sri. H.V. Devaraju for the petitioner would contend that the order of the CGRF in setting aside the back billing charges claimed on account of excess load, comes within the ambit of Section 126 of the Act. As such, the CGRF has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter so far as the back billing charges demanded by the petitioner.
3. Indisputably, the petitioner has not raised any objections regarding the jurisdiction of the CGRF inasmuch as entertaining and deciding the complaint made by respondent No.1 with respect to back billing charges claimed on account of excess load. It is trite law that the objections regarding the jurisdiction has to be raised at the first available opportunity. No such objections could be raised subsequently after suffering an order. Hence, the challenge to the order of the CGRF only on the ground of jurisdiction, is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR