IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.48711/2018 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN :
SRI. MOHAMMED SANAULLA AMIR S/O. LATE ABDUL RAZACK AMIR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT No.2, D.NO.18TH STREET CHANDNI CHOWK ROAD CROSS SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 051.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI AMARESH A ANGADI, ADV.) AND :
1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM) E-2 SUB-DVISION, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 052 BY ITS ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (V) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT MESCOM MANGALORE AND BESCOM CONSUMER APPELLATE FORUM MANGALORE – 575 005.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.C. SHANMUKHA, ADV. FOR R1; R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-1 – ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL), E.2 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, BANGALORE-560 051 DATED 10.20-2018 (20.10.2018) VIDE 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 notice issued by the respondent No.1 – Assistant Executive Engineer dated 20.10.2018 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of Building No.2, B.No.18th Street, Chandni Chowk Road Cross, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-51, having purchased the same from the earlier owner B.Noor Ahmed through registered sale deed dated 4.9.1993.
3. It is contended that Syed Rafeeq was a tenant in respect of a shop of the said building under the earlier owner B.Noor Ahmed wherein the said tenant was running the ice factory in the said shop and has taken electricity supply in respect of meter No.2EP1578 in his name to run the factory.
4. On the allegations of theft, a penalty of Rs.1,82,894/- was imposed by the Vigilance Cell of the BESCOM along with the compounding charges of Rs.28,000/-. In the meantime, it appears, the said tenant Syed Rafeeq had challenged the penalty imposed, before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.RA(M)198 which came to be disposed of on 15.6.2018 observing that the penalty imposed on the said tenant is justifiable. However, the said property in question having been alienated to Noor Ahmed, the said Noor Ahmed was made liable to make the payment. It is the contention of the petitioner that the property in question being purchased by the petitioner as far back as on 4.9.1993, the petitioner was oblivious of the proceedings pending before the Appellate Authority. However, it is only on the disconnection of the power supply to the property in question, the order passed by the Appellate Authority, impugned herein, has come to his knowledge. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel Sri.Amaresh A. Angadi, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being the owner of the property in question, recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner for the alleged theft committed by the tenant Syed Rafeeq, ultimately resulting in the disconnection of the power supply of electricity to the petitioner’s building. The order of the Appellate Authority being passed sans hearing the petitioner is void ab initio and deserves to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Authorities would submit that the petitioner in the proceedings before the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in S.C.No.869/2011, suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein, against the tenant Syed Rafeeq and others for ejectment of the tenant from the petition property, has agreed to receive the vacant possession of the property in question from the tenants, further agreeing that the dispute in regard to KEB problems shall be solved by the plaintiff/petitioner herein. Reliance is also placed on the order of this Court in the case of K.N.Sakrappa Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited in W.P.No.766/2015 (D.D.12.4.2018) as well as the Regulations No.4.09 (iv) of the Regulations and Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka to contend that the petitioner is liable to discharge the arrears of any electricity charges including penalty in respect of premises purchased by him, if he is desirous to have electricity for the premises. No such liability being discharged towards arrears due to the respondent authorities, disconnection of power supply made by the authorities is justifiable.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was not a party to the proceedings before the Appellate Authority wherein the original tenant Syed Rafeeq had filed the appeal challenging the penalty proceedings imposed for the alleged theft of electricity. As could be seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner has purchased the property in question on 4.9.1993 and it is clear that during the proceedings before the Appellate Authority the petitioner was the owner of the property. However, the Appellate Authority having confirmed the penalty levied on the tenant Syed Rafeeq, directed to initiate recovery proceedings against the owner Noor Ahmed dehors the property in question standing in the name of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is significant to note that the resultant action of the respondent authorities in disconnecting the electricity supply to the property in question would adversely affect the petitioner.
9. In such view of the matter, it was obligatory on the part of the Appellate Authority to ascertain the details about the owner of the property in question and provide an opportunity of hearing to the person who is affected. The order of the Appellate Authority–respondent No.2 impugned dated 15.6.2018 in Appeal No.RA(M)198 is vitiated on this count alone. Hence, the said appellate order as well as the consequential notice impugned are set aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of the Appellate Authority respondent No.2. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 17.6.2019 without expecting any notice. The respondent No.2-Appellate Authority shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall take a decision in accordance with law, in an expedite manner. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. In the meantime, the electricity supply connection made to the building of the petitioner, restored on 15.11.2018, shall continue subject to payment of the applicable tariff till the disposal of the appeal.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: