IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.22990/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN :
SMT.MOKSHA V., W/O SRI GAJANANA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT No.44/1, BERETENA AGARAHARA BEGURU ROAD, OFF: HOSURU MAIN ROAD, NEAR FLY OVER PILLAR No.193 BANGALORE – 560100 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI M.SUBRAHMANYA BHAT, ADV.) AND :
1 . BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD ., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560001 2 . GENERAL MANAGER (REVENUE), BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 01 3 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) BESCOM LTD., C O & M, BENGALURU METROPOLITAN AREA SOUTH ZONE BESCOM, BANGALORE – 560102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO SERVICE AND SUPPLY THE ADDITIONAL LOAD OF 70 KVA SANCTIONED TO THE PETITIONER’S INSTALLATION BEARING RR No.S9HT-340 AS PER THE LETTER DATED 09.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E FORTHWITH.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent No.3 to service and supply the additional load of 70 KVA sanctioned to the petitioner’s installation bearing RR No.S8HT-340 as per the letter dated 9.3.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent.
2. The petitioner claims to be a registered consumer of the respondent electricity supply company. The installation bearing RR No.S8HT-340 was serviced on 2.6.2010 under HT-2(A) tariff for industrial purpose. It is submitted that the team headed by the Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer (El), O and M Unit, C.K.Nagar, inspected the installation on 18.8.2015 and claimed to have noticed misuse of tariff. Accordingly back billing charges were demanded. The appeal against the said demand is pending before the Competent Appellate Authority. However, the petitioner has paid the entire back billing charges with the 2nd respondent.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the sanction order was made for additional load of 70 KVA on 9.3.2016. But in view of the dispute relating to the back billing charges, the same was not implemented.
4. Pursuant to payment of the entire back billing charges, the petitioner has made representation before the Managing Director, respondent No.1, who in turn has directed the Chief Engineer(Ele) C, O & M, BMA, South Zone, BESCOM, Bengaluru, in terms of the letter dated 10.4.2019, to examine the representation of the petitioner, solve the issue and furnish the action taken report within three days.
5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite such direction, no action has been taken by the concerned Authority.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no legal impediment for the respondent No.3 to take action on the representation dated 26.12.2018 submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No.1, in accordance with law, within a time frame.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall submit a fresh representation before the respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and on submission of such representation, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same and appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation to be made by the petitioner.
Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: