IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.8445/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
PAGE INDUSTRIES LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CESSNA BUSINESS PARK 7TH FLOOR, UMIYA BUSINESS BAY TOWER-1, VARTHUR HOBLI OUTER RING ROAD BENGALURU-560103 [REP. BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY MURUGESH.C]. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV.) AND:
1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001 [REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR] 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [AEE] S-13, SUB-DIVISION KOODLUGATE, HOSUR ROAD BESCOM, BENGALURU-560068.
3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER BESCOM VIGILENCE JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-03.
4. Mrs.GEETHA JEEYANNA REDDY W/O LATE JEEYANNA REDDY No.4, 3RD “A” CROSS, 21ST MAIN 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560076.
5. SHASHI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED SHASHI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED F-88, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110020 [REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR].
6. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [AEE] S-11, SUB-DIVISION, 24TH MAIN 17TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, 2ND SECTOR BENGALURU-560012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3 & R-6;
R-4 AND R-5 – SERVED THROUGH HAND SUMMONS V/O DATED 26.02.2018.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT No.1 TO; [a] QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2018 BY RESPONDENT No.1, S-13 SUB DIVISION, ISSUING BACK BILLING CHARGES AT ANNEXURE-A; [b] QUASH THE PROVISIONAL BILL DATED 13.07.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.2 AT ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC., 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 challenged the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 – Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM issuing Back Billing Charges inter alia challenging the Provisional Bill issued by the respondent No.2 at Annexures-A and B respectively.
2. The petitioner submits that after obtaining a Factory License from the Department of Factories and Boilers, Government of Karnataka, the petitioner is carrying on garment manufacturing activities originally obtaining the power supply of HT-2[b][i] category [Commercial Category]. Subsequently, there was a change of tariff from HT-2[b][i] to HT-2[a][i]. It is contended that on 08.03.2017, the respondent No.3 conducted inspection in the site of the petitioner and gave report alleging that the petitioner is carrying on 80% commercial activity and has misused the tariff. The second respondent raised a provisional bill claiming Back Billing Charges to the extent of Rs.22,40,227/- alleging violation of provisions of Section 42.02[a] of the Supply Regulation under Electricity and Supply Code.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the inspection has been conducted admittedly by the Manager, BESCOM Vigilance and the provisional bill has been issued by the respondent No.2 and the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Shridhar Prabhu appearing for the petitioner would submit that the inspection and provisional assessment both have to be conducted by the Assessing Officer and since the same is not done in the present case, the whole process is vitiated and has been rendered nullity. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited [SOUTHCO] & Another V/s. Shi. Seetaram Rice Mill, reported in [2012] 2 SCC 108.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the orders impugned are appealable. The petitioner without exhausting the alternative remedy has rushed to this Court. On the availability of the alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition deserves to be rejected.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal available under the Act. All the questions raised before this Court can be very well adjudicated before the Authority concerned. A complete mechanism is provided under the Act for adjudication of challenge made to the order. On this ground alone, the writ petition stands disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative Appellate remedy available under the Act, keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties.
7. If such an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on merits in accordance with law, without objecting to the period of limitation.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.