IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.3223-3224/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BRAND STUDIO LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD., INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.2/1 Sy.No.4 & 2, WARD 13, BOMMANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BOMMANAHALLI BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068 REP. BY ITS FINANCE HEAD AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Mr. RAGHU A HEGDE.
2. M/S. PRATEEK APPARELS PVT. LTD., INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT No.4 PART B, No.113, KRISHNA REDDY INDUSTRIAL AREA KUDLU GATE, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR Mr. SANJAY AGARWAL. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI T.V.VIJAY RAGHAVAN, ADV.] AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [EI] S-20 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM 17TH MAIN ROAD, 24TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, 2ND SECTOR BENGALURU-560102.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [EI] C, O & M SUB-DIVISION, S-8 SUB DIVISION BESCOM, BENGALURU.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR BENGALURU ADDITIONAL SOUTH No.19, MUNILAKSHMAMMA COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, BTS LAYOUT, AREKERE MAIN, AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD.
4. SRI K.SUNDAR BABU S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA REDDY INDUSTRIAL AREA, 7TH MILE KUDLU GATE, HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU-560068. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE POWER BILL TO THE EXTENT OF THE ARREARS OF RS.1,50,72,927/- DATED 01.01.2019 IN RESPECT OF R.R.NO.48239964649 [S8 HT 163] VIDE ACCOUNT No.4823996000 AND BILL No.482396646465 FOR THE BILLING PERIOD FROM 01.12.2018 TO 01.01.2019 CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioners have called in question the legality and correctness of the power bill dated 01.01.2019 to the extent of arrears of Rs.1,50,72,924/- in respect of R.R.No.4823996469 [S8 HT 163] vide Account No.4823996000 and Bill No.482396646465 for the billing period from 01.12.2018 to 01.01.2019 claimed by the respondent No.2.
3. The petitioners are claiming to be the private limited companies, incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of Apparels in online and offline platform. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 herein, became absolute owner of the property bearing Plot No.4 [Part-B] situated in Sy.No.113, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7th Mile, Kudlu gate, Hosur Road, Bengaluru-560068, pursuant to the property purchased in the E-auction held on 18.10.2016 under the SARFAESI Act and execution of registered sale certificate dated: 21.02.2017. It is contended that the second petitioner herein was in absolute possession of the property in question by virtue of a lease agreement dated: 07.09.2004 entered in their favour by respondent No.4 and his wife, wherein the business of manufacturing activity was carried on by the petitioners. The respondent No.4 having lost his title over the leased property after he failed to repay the loan and after having purchased the leased property in public action under the SARFAESI Act, the first petitioner became the absolute owner and executed a lease deed in favour of second petitioner.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the current bill dated 01.01.2019 demanding the arrears of Rs.1,54,57,221/- payable by the respondent No.4 in respect of his installation bearing No.S4 HT-75 from the petitioners is illegal. Efforts made by the petitioners with the respondents to rectify the current bill payable by the second petitioner in respect of the Installation No.S8 HT-163 being failed, the petitioners have approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel Sri.T.V.Vijay Raghavan appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend that, the bill claimed by the respondent authorities in respect of Installation bearing S4 HT-75 towards the arrears of fourth respondent is wholly unsustainable. According to the learned counsel, the said Installation bearing S4 HT-75 is in a different part of the plot which belongs to the respondent No.4 and that property is not purchased by the petitioners herein and the said installation is also not in the premises of the petitioners. Learned counsel pointed out that the request made by the petitioners has been turned down by the respondent authorities as per their reply dated 15.12.2018 at Annexure-Q to the writ petitions.
6. Learned counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the writ petitions are not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioners have not exhausted the alternative remedy available under the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission [Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman]Regulations, 2004 ['Regulation' for short]. Accordingly, seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. The question involved herein, relates to the Installation bearing No.S4 HT-75, whether is installed in the premises of the petitioners or not and whether the petitioners are liable to pay the arrears as claimed?
8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. The epicenter of the dispute relates to the Installation bearing S4 HT-75 of Mr.K.Sundar Babu. As could be seen from the material placed on record, the petitioners have purchased the property of Mr.K.Sundar Babu through E-auction under the SARFAESI Act, as referred to above. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the said R.R.No.S4 HT-75 is not within the premises of the petitioners who purchased the property under the sale certificate dated 21.02.2017, is a factual dispute which cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. It is not in dispute that the Regulation 6 of the Regulations contemplates the procedure for grievance, redressal and lodging complaints. Complaint is defined under Clause 2[g] of the Regulations and the same reads thus:
“‘Complaint’ means any grievance made by a consumer with regard to supply of electricity by the licensee, provided that grievance falling within the purview of any of the following provisions of the Act are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Forum:
[1] unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Act [2] offences and penalties as provided under Section 135 to 139 of the Act [3] accident in the distribution, supply or use of electricity as provided under Section 161 of the Act”
11. Further, Clause 9 of the Regulation deals with the findings of the Forum. As per Clause 9.1 of the Regulation, if, after the completion of the proceedings, the Forum is satisfied that any of the allegations contained in the complaint is true, it shall issue an order to the licensee directing it: [a] redress the grievance of the complainant, and [b] to pay such amount as may be awarded as costs to the consumer. Further, Clause 9.3 provides that, any Complainant aggrieved by the order made by the Forum may make a representation against such order to the ‘Ombudsman’, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. As per Regulation 21, procedure is prescribed for redressal of the grievance by the ‘Ombudsman’.
12. A complete mechanism is provided under the Regulations for the redressal of the grievance of the consumer of electricity supplied by the licensee. In such circumstances, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners circumventing the alternative and effective remedy available under the Regulations is not maintainable, more particularly when the factual dispute is involved.
In these circumstances, the writ petitions stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to resort to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
The respondent authorities shall not proceed with the coercive recovery proceedings in pursuance to the bill dated 01.01.2019 to the extent of Rs.1,50,72,924/- claimed as per Annexure-R to the Writ petitions, for a period of two weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.