IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.6339 OF 2017 [GM-KEB] BETWEEN:
M/S. ESD BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.450/1/14, 5TH FLOOR, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, 27TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, D.V. VENKATACHALAPATHI. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE] AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENERGY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KREDL), NO.39, SHANTHIGRUHA, BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM), K.R. CIRCLE, CUBBON PARK ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI.VASANTH V. FERNANDIS, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1.
SRI. M.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2. R3-SERVED] THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2017 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.56799 OF 2014 REJECTING/DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.
* * * * * THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsels appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 is served and unrepresented.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition in terms of the order passed in the earlier writ petition that is W.P. No.41854 of 2016 disposed off on 17.07.2017, the present writ appeal is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though various contentions were urged before the learned Single Judge, none of them have been considered. The learned Singe Judge having extracted the order passed in the earlier writ petition has dismissed the writ petition. The same are disputed by the learned counsels appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for.
5. A reading of the order of the learned Single Judge does not indicate as to what was the controversy that arose for consideration in the instant writ petition and what was the controversy that was decided in the earlier writ petition. The extract of the earlier order does not answer the plea put-forth by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.56799 of 2014 [GM-KEB] is set aside. The Writ Petition is restored to file. The learned Single Judge to hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders.
In the interregnum the respondents are directed not to precipitate the issue.
All pending I.As do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*