IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50661/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
SRI SEBASTIAN.C.J., S/O LATE C.JAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT N O.76/4, 30TH CROSS 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI SANDESH.C.R., ADV. FOR SRI JAYARAJ.D.S., ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER [ELEC.] BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., No.14/3, ARAVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BANGALOR EELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., BENGALURU SOUTH CIRCLE No.14/3, ARAVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BENGALURU SOUTH CIRCLE BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., 27TH CROSS, BSK II STAGE BENGALURU-560070.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CO & M, SI SUB DIVISION BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., No.209, 45TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560070.
6. SRI K.R.RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT No.102/1, 3RD MAIN 2ND CROSS, SEM COLONY BENGALURU-560039. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/R-5 DATED 22.10.2019 IN TAKING A DECISION TO DISCONNECT THE POWER SUPPLY TO THE SCHEDULE PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER OF RR No.MSISH59735 AND MSIS63810 AS PER CLAUSE 43 OF THE CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY OF DISTRIBUTIO LICENSEES IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA IN PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the notice of the Assistant Executive Engineer – respondent No.5 dated 22.10.2019 whereby the petitioner has been called upon to submit any validating document if any, in support of his defence.
2. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to restore the electricity connections to the petitioner’s premises in W.P.No.7347/2019 which came to be disposed of on 10.07.2019. The relevant paragraphs of the said orders are quoted herein for ready reference:
“8. It is well settled that the truth is invincible, in order to get the veracity of the documents examined by the official respondents, an opportunity has been given to the petitioner and reply is also said to have been filed.
9. In such circumstances, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the official respondents to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law in an expedite manner preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
10. It is made clear that if the sanction plan was placed on the earlier occasion before the authorities, there is no inhibition for the petitioner to furnish the documents to substantiate the same and to prove the same as a valid sanction plan.
The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.5 on 18.07.2019 without waiting for any notice.
Till a decision is to be taken by the official respondents, power supply shall be continued to the property in question.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.”
3. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the official respondents are deciding the matter. In that process, Annexure-A has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Padmanabha V. Mahale representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgment of Cognate Bench of this Court in the case of M.Nagaraj V/s. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited [2012 SCC OnLine Kar 2800] and a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Md. Jasim Ansari V/s. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited [2017 SCC OnLine Cal 2277] submitted that at the behest of the respondent No.6, no power supply could be disconnected. On the complaint made by the respondent No.6, direction has been issued by the BBMP to the Electricity Distribution Company to disconnect the power supply, the same cannot be acted upon by the official respondent in contrary to Sections 43 and 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
5. The arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be considered/adjudicated at this stage, since the official respondents in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.7347/2019 has called upon the petitioner to furnish the documents. In the said writ petition proceedings, it has been held that till a decision is to be taken by the official respondents, power supply shall be continued to the property in question. Before such a decision is taken by the official respondents, merely challenging the notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court.
The writ petition is premature and accordingly stands dismissed.
It is needless to observe that if any such documents are submitted, the official respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, no power supply disconnection shall be made till a decision is taken by the official respondents.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.