IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50668/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN :
R.SUBRAHMANYAM IYER S/O SH. RAGHAVAN IYER AGEDA BOUT 49 YEAR 83/4/10, DODDAMMA TEMPLE STREET OPP. DODDAMMA TEMPLE HULIMAVU, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 076 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI DORE RAJ, ADV. FOR SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV.) AND :
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) BESCOM S-19 SUB-DIVISION (OLD S10 SUB DIVISION) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHANMUKHA G.C., ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2ND JULY 2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A).
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 final assessment order dated 2.7.2018 passed by the respondent.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the manufacturer of certain goods holding license under the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioner has been allotted R.R.No.BGP1684 by the respondent while providing power supply to the said premises. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the final assessment order dated 2.7.2018 has been passed confirming the provisional notice dated 31.3.2018 without assigning any reasons. It is pointed out that the final order is dated 2.7.2018, whereas clause.6 of the preamble to the said order discloses that the consumer had represented and filed objections in his letter dated 18.7.2018. Referring to these inconsistencies in the order, learned counsel seeks for quashing the same.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent though made an endeavour to justify the order, ultimately failed to defend the inconsistent order.
4. It is ex-facie apparent that no reasons are assigned by the respondent in arriving at a decision. It is well settled law that reasons are the harbinger for the mind of the officer passing the order and a decision arrived at. In the absence of the reasons, the order impugned is void ab inito and hit by the principles of natural justice. As such, the order impugned is not sustainable. Even otherwise, the inconsistency is apparent inasmuch as the date of the objections said to have been filed by the petitioner and the date of the order. No order ought to have been passed on 2.7.2018 when the objections are filed by the petitioner on 18.7.2018.
For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned dated 2.7.2018 at Annexure-A is quashed and the matter is restored to the file of the respondent to re- consider the same in accordance with law and pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, considering the objections said to have been filed by the petitioner. Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: