IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.65181/2016 & WRIT PETITION No.992/2017 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
1. MR. SHAKEEL AHSAN S/O MR. HAJI SHAM’S TABREZ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. MRS. IRFANA KHATOON W/O MR. SHAKEEL AHSAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT No.25/18-1, 5TH CROSS NEHRU ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 026.
... PETITIONERS [BY SRI S.P KULKARNI, ADV.] AND:
1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) W-3, SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 023.
…RESPONDENTS [BY SRI G.C. SHANMUKHA, ADV.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURE-D THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.8.2016 AND QUASH ANNEXURE – D THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.8.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioners have challenged the endorsement dated 29.08.2016 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the demand has been raised on the petitioners to make the arrears of Rs.16,48,729/- to provide permanent power supply to the premises of the petitioners.
3. The petitioners are claiming to be the absolute owners of the immovable property bearing No.29/1, BBMP PID No.42-76-29/1, presently PID No.134-W0122-1, G-Street, 1st Main Road, Kuvempunagar, Bangalore. The petitioners in order to construct the residential building have obtained sanction plan and have constructed the residential building availing the temporary power connection vide Installation bearing R.R.No.W3PP7505 for construction. It transpires that after completion of construction, the petitioners have submitted an application for sanction of 12KW permanent power supply to which the respondents have issued the endorsement impugned herein. Hence, these writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel Sri. S.P. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the successive fourth purchasers of the property in question and the sale deed executed by their vendor clearly depicts that the vendor has given an undertaking that the property is free from all encumbrances including the claims, taxes or charges. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Classic Developers, Bangalore and Another vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), Bangalore and Others reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2698 to contend that Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies to the facts of the present case i.e., regarding rights and liabilities of buyer and seller.
5. Learned counsel Sri. G.C. Shanmukha appearing for the respondents placing reliance on the order of this Court in the case of K.N. Sakrappa vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (BESCOM) and Others reported in 2018 (3) KCCR 2630 submitted that the Regulation 4.09(iv) of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka Regulations (‘Regulations’ for short) specifies that the person, who desires to have electricity for a premises for which the power supply Agreement has been terminated, is liable to discharge the outstanding arrears in respect of the said premises. Hence, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the issue involved has been considered by this Court in K.N. Sakrappa, supra, wherein this Court placing reliance on the Regulation 4.09(iv) of the Regulations has categorically held that the petitioner/owner of the premises is entitled to discharge arrears of electricity charges in respect of the premises purchased by him, if he desirous to have electricity for that premises. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners made an endeavor to distinguish this case placing reliance on the sale deed at Annexure – A that the property purchased by the petitioners was free from all encumbrances. This clause in the sale deed would not absolve the petitioners from rigor of the Regulation 4.09(iv) referred to supra. Moreover, indisputably the petitioners herein are the fourth purchasers of the property in question and as such, the arrears of electricity charges in respect of the premises in question would have been lost sight off or the interpretation relating to the clause namely, “Not charged for any maintenance, money claims, taxes or charges” whether includes electricity charges is a debatable issue and the interpretation of the said clause may not be warranted at this stage to fix the liability of the arrears of the electricity charges in terms of the Regulation 4.09(iv) referred to supra.
7. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners was rendered in a different context where the property was purchased in a public auction held by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, a statutory authority.
8. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for the redressal of the grievance, if advised so. If such grievance is raised before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the same shall be considered by the Forum on merits in accordance with law in an expedite manner, not being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove and without objecting to the period of limitation.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR