IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO.53 OF 2019 IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.6090-6091 OF 2017 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.) BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED O & M SUB-DIVISION KUNIGAL-572 126.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRIRANGA S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S. VIJAYAA STEELS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: SY.NO.84/11, KALLANYAKANAHALLI ANCHEPALYA, NEAR 220 KV SUB-STATION KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 126 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. CONSUMER GRIEVANCE AND REDRESSAL FORUM FOR TUMAKURU DISTRICT OF BESCOM TUMAKURU CIRCLE OFFICE, BESCOM SHIVAKUMARASWAMY CIRCLE KOTITHOPHU ROAD TUMAKURU-572 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.
3. ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 9/2, 6TH FLOOR, MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
4. M/S. VIKAT ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.3 5TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 046.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2018 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.6090-6091 OF 2017 AND RESTORE THE SAME.
***** THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Review Petition is filed praying to review the order dated 24-7-2018 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.6090-91 of 2017. In terms of the said order, the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld wherein the learned Single Judge having taken note of the submissions directed the BESCOM to supply electricity to the petitioner by collecting the approximate monthly charges in advance without insisting for security deposit till a pre-payment meter is installed for the respondent consumer.
2. On considering the contentions, we do not find that there is any error on the face of the record that calls for any interference. The matter is being re-argued before this Court. This is not the appellate court but a review Court. The scope of review is limited. All the contentions being advanced are on the merits of the petition. So far as the order is concerned, we find no error apparent on the face of the record that calls for any interference. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE rsk/-