1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.663/2014 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
M/S. KAROL LUBRICANTS INDIA LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI ANWAR SHERIEFF NO.11/I, SHAMPUR ROAD K G HALLI NEAR DR. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE BENGALURU – 45 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.) AND:
1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) CORPORATE OFFICE K.R.CIRCLE REPRESENTED BY ITS ENGINEER BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), C-5 SUB DIVISION BESCOM, KAVAL BAIRASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 032 3. H. PURUSHOTHAM EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM R.R.NAGAR ADDITIONAL WEST DIVISION BYATARAYANAPURA NEAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 26 4. SRI C. NAGARAJ THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), C-5 SUB DIVISION BESCOM, KAVAL BAIRASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 032 (RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE DELETED V/O. DATED 18.06.2014) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.C.SHANMUKHA, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO & QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2013, ISSUED BY R2, VIDE ANNEXURE – G, AS THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BESIDES VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16, 19 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER MR. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV. FOR PETITIONER MR.G.C.SHANMUKHA, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 1. The impugned order, Annexure-G, dated 25.10.2013, passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BESOM, is an appealable order before the Superintending Engineer under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the demand of Rs.12.80 lakhs, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.2.50 lakhs under the order of this Court in the previous round of litigation. For filing of the appeal under Section 127 of the Act, the petitioner may have to deposit 50% of Rs.12.80 lakhs, which is onerous for the petitioner.
3. The present case is against the back billing charged against the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 (BESCOM) has submitted that the petitioner had deliberately remained ex parte before the Assistant Executive Engineer and alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to him.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by filing an appeal in terms of Section 127 of the Act, the present petition is not maintainable.
5. If the said appeal is preferred within the period of one month from today before the concerned Appellate Authority, the concerned Appellate Authority shall not object on the ground of limitation and decide the appeal on merits by dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner and the evidence produced by him.
6. The amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs deposited by the petitioner shall remain subject to the final result of the said appeal to be preferred. It is also directed that the appeal shall be disposed of, as expeditiously as possibly within six months from today.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj