IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA WP NO.26086/2017 & WP NO.26493/2017 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
N.D. PRAKASHAMURTHY, S/O. C.N. DASARAJ, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT 2ND CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR, MANDY, MANDYA CITY-571 401 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, NIRMANA BHAVAN, II FLOOR, P.O. NO.5148, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, NO.1360, ‘G’ AND ‘H’ BLOCK ANIKETHANA ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 001 3. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, MYSURU NORTH, MYSURU-570 001 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, CESC, O & M CIRCLE, BM ROAD, MANDYA-571 401 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION MANDYA-571 401 6. THE DEPUTY ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, MANDYA MANDYA CITY-571 401 7. K.L. ANATHA SHESHA, S/O. K. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO MAJOR, NO.D-5/2A/1202, 2ND CROSS, ASHOKANAGARA, MANDYA CITY – 571 401 ... RESPONDENTS (BY H.V. DEVARAJU, FOR SRI N.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; SRI ANIL SHEKAR K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, R5 AND R6) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF R2 DATED 26.05.2017 PASSED VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THE ORDER OF R6 DATED 27.05.2017 PASSED AT ANNEXURE-K AND TO QUASH THE SAME, ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 26.05.2017 and 27.05.2017 passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 6 vide Annexures – J and K respectively inter alia seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representations of the petitioner issued in the form of legal notice dated 02.03.2017 and 24.03.2017 and 05.05.2017 at Annexures – C, E and H respectively.
2. It is contended that the petitioner originally has requested for approval of 63 KV transformers and subsequently for the additional load through M/s. Vignesh Vidyuth Controls, Bangalore for his commercial purpose. The petitioner has incurred huge expenses for the said approval on self execution approval. It is the grievance of the petitioner that through the pole erected by him power supply is now made to the 6th respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner has got issued legal notices through his learned counsel to consider the grievance of the petitioner but in vain. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has directed the 6th respondent to grant sanction for the supply of the electricity from the petitioner’s electrical pole, the 6th respondent has sanctioned permission to the 7th respondent to draw the electrical supply from the said pole. Hence, the approval granted by the 4th respondent for the supply of electricity from the pole erected by the petitioner is the cause for the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the electric pole was erected at the cost of the petitioner. Huge expenses were incurred by the him. At this stage, the respondent Nos.2 and 6 ought not to have granted any permission to the 7th respondent to procure the power from the said pole. The order of approval by the 2nd and 6th respondents is wholly illegal and unjustifiable.
4. Learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that in terms of Clause 9.07(3) of the ‘conditions of supply of Electricity of the Distribution licensees in the state of Karnataka’ (‘Condition’ for short)in case of self execution, the owner/occupier of the M.S. Building shall execute the service line works including extension of 11 KV line, transformer, LT line etc and after completion of the work, the entire service lines along with transformers shall be taken over by the licensee and the ownership of the lines and other equipment would thereafter vests with the licensee for the purpose of maintenance. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the pole erected by him for arranging power supply to his installation belongs to him is not correct.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 supports the arguments of the learned AGA. The learned counsel for respondent No.7 would submit that in view of the electrical power supply now arranged on LT basis through electrical pole in question since 2017, the writ petition has become infructuous. It is submitted that the approval of order made by respondent Nos.2 and 6 is in conformity with Clause 9.07(3)(e) of the Conditions. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner though has incurred the expenses for installing the electrical pole for drawing the electrical supply to his installation, the said electrical pole along with the transformers shall be under the ownership of the licensee for the purpose of maintenance. Clause 9.07 of the conditions specifies that the said service line along with transformers shall be taken over by the licensee and the ownership of the lines and other equipments thereafter vests with the licensee. In view of the same, the pole from which the cable was taped to the 7th respondent’s, electrical installation does not exclusively belonged to the petitioner in terms of clause 9.07(3)(e) of the Conditions. The approval has been accorded by respondent Nos.2 and 6 to the 7th respondent for utilizing the electricity supply from the said pole. Moreover, the electrical power supply has now being commissioned to the electrical installation of the 7th respondent since 2017 and hence, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs