IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.11713/2019 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
1. BASHEER PARVANTAVIDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O ABDULLA PARAVANTAVIDA RESIDING AT EDACHERI POST VIA VADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA – 673502.
2. MR. ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O MARAMUKUTTY MASTER RESIDING AT PALAYANGAL HOUSE POST KUNNAKKAVU, VIA CHERUKAVA MALAPPUTAM DISTRICT, KERALA – 679 340 3. MR. PUTHIYOTTIL CHINNA MOHAMED AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O ABDULLA RESIDING AT CHAKKALAKANDIYIL HOUSE POST KALLACHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA – 673 506 PETITIONER No.1 IS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SUJITH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN NAIR R/AT “THE NEW MARK”, END POINT ROAD VIDYARATHNANAGAR, MANIPAL – 576104.
... PETITIONERS [BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADV.] AND:
1. THE REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBERS CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (CESCOM) THE CORPORATE OFFICE, No.29 VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE, HINAKAL MYSORE – 570 017.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EXECUTION AND MAINTENANCE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY COMPANY LTD., MANIPAL – 576 119 3. MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR PARADIGAM PLAZA A.B. SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE – 575 001 4. CHANDRASHEKAR A AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE T.M. ANJINEYOTHI R/AT No.520, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT NEW RING ROAD, DOMLUR BANGALORE – 560 071 5. KRIPA CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O A. CHANDRASHEKAR R/AT No.520, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT NEW RIND ROAD, DOMLUR BANGALORE – 560 071 6. THE MARK (MAINTENANCE SERVICE ORGANIZATION) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER NAGARAJ No.521, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071.
…RESPONDENTS [BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADV., FOR R4 AND R5; R6 - SERVED] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY AGAINST THE R-4 AND 5 WHICH CULMINATED INTO ANORDER OF DISCONNECTION OF POWER SUPPLY DATED 1.3.2019 RELATING TO THE INSTALLATIONS BEARING No.MPL 44066, 44067, 44068, 44069, 44070, 44071 & 44443 VIDE ANNEXURE – A WHICH PRECEDED BY THE CANCELLATION OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AGREEMENTS DATED 1.12.2018 WITH THE R-4 AND 5 BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID INSTALLATIONS AS PER ANNEXURE- C1 TO C7 IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS PER ANNEXURE – B WHICH IN TURN AFFIRMED THE PROVISIONSAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.8.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE – D1 TO D7 DATED 18.8.2010 PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY DIRECTING THE R-4 AND 5 TO PAY IN TOTAL SUM OF RS.21,24,773/- ARE ALL GROSSLY ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR, ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN AS MUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONERS AND AS SUCH NOT ONLY IN UTTER VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BUT ALSO IN CONTRACENTION OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AS AMENDED READ WITH THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF LICENSES IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by respondent No.1, inter alia, seeking for other reliefs. However, the prayer is now confined to the challenge made to the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure – B.
2. It is submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the joint owners of the immovable property comprised in Sy.No.316/1 of Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk and District. On the basis of the licence obtained by respondent Nos.4 and 5 from the jurisdictional Udupi Municipal Council, a multistoried residential building came to be constructed. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 obtained an Occupancy Certificate in respect of the aforesaid residential building on 23.06.2010. The Vigilance Squad attached to the respondent – Company purportedly held an inspection in the aforesaid premises on 02.08.2010 and held that the predecessor of the petitioners had misused the electricity. The provisional assessment order was passed by respondent No.2 and demand notice came to be issued demanding Rs.21,24,773/- towards the back billing charges for 20 months.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners herein purchased the aforesaid multistoried residential building from respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 11.04.2014. The predecessor of the petitioners indeed had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority having suffered an order from the Assessing Authority. The said appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 09.04.2018 at Annexure – B impugned herein. A communication came to issued to the petitioners demanding a sum of Rs.1,10,70,216/- by respondent No.2 on 09.05.2018. A disconnection memo also came to be issued for non- payment of the aforesaid amount. This Court by an interim order dated 18.03.2019 directed respondent No.2 not to dismantle the power installations bearing Nos.MPL 44066, 44067, 44068, 44069, 44070, 44071 and 44443 provided to the building in question and the said interim order has been modified vide order dated 24.04.2019 directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore the power supply to the premises in question subject to the petitioners depositing the balance 50% of the amount demanded in the original assessment order within a period of two weeks. The petitioners have complied with the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that having purchased the property in question from respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 11.04.2014, the petitioners had no opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Appellate Authority since the predecessor of the petitioners was handling the said matter. Indeed, the petitioners were oblivious of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority and it has come to their knowledge only on the receipt of the demand made on 09.05.2018 by respondent No.2. It is submitted that the petitioners may be provided an opportunity of hearing before the Appellate Authority to putforth their case since the petitioners’ predecessor who had suffered an order had lost interest in view of the property sold to the petitioners as far back as in 2014.
5. Learned counsel for respondents justifying the order impugned would submit that the predecessor of the petitioners had participated in the proceedings before the Appellate Authority. Unless it is brought to the notice of the respondent – Authorities that the petitioners have purchased the property in question, no opportunity of hearing could be expected by the petitioners. Any order passed pursuant to the appeal proceedings initiated by the predecessor of the petitioners is in accordance with law and the same requires to be confirmed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, the principles of natural justice demands a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the purchaser of the property in question on 11.04.2014. It is the plea of the petitioners that they were oblivious of the proceedings pending before the respondent – Authorities and the same came to their knowledge on the demand made by respondent No.2. Considering these factual aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be sub-served in directing the Appellate Authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to putforth their explanation inasmuch as the demand made against them.
7. Hence, the order impugned at Annexure – B dated 09.04.2018 is quashed. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.1. The petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall appear before respondent No.1 on 10.01.2020 without waiting for any notice and shall putforth their plea/submissions/explanation before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall consider the same and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from 10.01.2020. In the meantime, the petitioners shall continue to pay regularly the consumption charges as per LT3 demanded, till the disposal of the appeal. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.2/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR