IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.46477/2013 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
M/s MITTAL STEEL LIMITED 29/2, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI I.S.MITTAL. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI S.N.MURTHY, ADV. FOR SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADV.] AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARANTAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.), CO&M, BESCOM, EAST 4TH SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560048. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI G.C.SHANMUKHA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI V.Y.KUMAR & SRI NATARAJ, ADVS. FOR R-1 & R-2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REDUCE CONTRACT DEMAND FROM 2200 KVA TO 50 KVA FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1997 TO 15.02.1998.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reduce contract demand from 2200 KVA to 50 KVA for the period from July 1997 to 15.02.1998, inter alia, seeking a declaration that respondents have no right or authority to claim contract demand amount after 15.02.1998, the date of disconnection and direct the respondents to credit agreed interest of Rs.11,451/- per month on deposit amount of Rs.12,18,792/- held by the respondents from May 1998 to till the refund.
2. The petitioner – company was engaged in manufacturing of steel. It had a contract demand of 2200 KVA. It transpires that owing to the industrial unrest and workers having resorted to strike, management had declared lock out. Hence, a request was made to the Chief Engineer, Elec. (Gen.) by letter dated 30.07.1997 for reduction of contract demand from 2200 KVA to 50 KVA from August 1997. Respondent No.2 by letter dated 31.01.1998 issued notice of disconnecting the electricity connection for non- payment of arrears of Rs.5,60,082/- and further, by letter dated 01.05.1998 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.80,640/- being the difference of additional security deposit. It was further mentioned that a sum of Rs.12,18,792/- is held in deposit by the company towards three months minimum deposit. Further during February 1998 to September 1998, respondent No.2 has sent demand bills regarding the electricity charges and finally the bill was raised amounting to Rs.62,45,830/- and the same was informed by letter dated 02.06.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Regulations 33.07 and 36.02 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988 (‘Regulations 1988’ for short), the respondents were obligated to reduce the contract demand/sanctioned load from 2200 KVA to 50 KVA as requested by the petitioner in terms of the Annexure – A from August 1997. No decision is taken on Annexure – A, the request made by the petitioner, but surprisingly, the demand of huge arrears of Rs.62,45,830/- is made, which necessarily calls for interference by this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner - company vide letter dated 26.02.1998 (Annexure – F) requested the reduction of contract demand on account of labour unrest. On receipt of this letter, the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 19.06.1998 (Annexure-G) directed the inspection of the premises to ascertain whether the petitioner – company qualifies for availing reduction of contract demand. On inspection of the premises and after considering all the relevant particulars, it was found that the petitioner – company was not eligible to avail the benefit of reduction of contract demand. Though the petitioner has relied on the circular dated 03.01.1998, no particulars of industrial unrest was made available. Hence, the demand of Rs.62,45,830/- made by the respondent No.2 is in accordance with law.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Annexure – A is the request made by the petitioner dated 30.07.1997 to reduce the contract demand from 2200 KVA to 50 KVA from August 1997 till they inform further and the said request was made on the industrial unrest suffered by the industry resulting in declaration of lock out since the workers have resorted to strike.
7. As could be seen from the record, pursuant to the said request made by the petitioner, the Karnataka Power Transmission Company Limited (KPTCL), the then Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) by letter dated 19.06.1998, requested the Executive Engineer (El.), Bangalore, to inspect the premises and send recommendation directly to the Board considering the request for temporary reduction of the contract demand made by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that on inspection of the premises and after considering the relevant particulars, it was found that the petitioner - company was not eligible to avail the benefit of reduction of contract demand placing reliance on the statement of objections filed, but fairly submitted that no such decision taken by the authority concerned is available on record. It is further significant to note that the letter dated 07.11.2000 of the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka addressed to the Branch Officer, Branch – I, New Delhi and another depicts that the arrears of dues as on June 1999 was Rs.17,49,532/-, the date of disconnection was 15.02.1998 and the deposit amount was Rs.12,18,793/-. The impugned Annexure – P issued by the respondent – Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited does not reflect any break up figures and the total outstanding arrears along with interest amounting to Rs.62,45,830/- as demanded.
8. In the circumstances, it is apt to refer to the Regulation 36.02 of the Regulations 1988, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
"36.02. Reduction in Contract Demand/Sanctioned Load.- During the agreement period, initial or extended, the Consumer is entitled to get his Contract Demand/Sanctioned Load reduced by executing a fresh agreement. The reduction will be given effect to from the meter reading date following the expiry of two months’ period from the date of receipt of his request by the Board. However, the Consumer shall continue to pay line minimum charges, if any, till the expiry of the initial agreement period.”
9. It was incumbent on the respondents to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner as per Annexure – A. That exercise having not been done, merely demanding outstanding arrears of Rs.62,45,830/- is unsustainable and the same requires to be set aside.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed, setting aside the communication dated 22.02.2001 at Annexure - L to the writ petition and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the Annexure – F filed by the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 shall take a decision in accordance with law as aforesaid, in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR