IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.57163/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
SRI SYED RAFIQ S/O LATE SYED GHANI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT SHIRAVALA ROAD, ANALEKOPPA NEW LAYOUT, SAGAR, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577401. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI GANAPATHI, ADV.] AND:
1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ELECL., MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., SHIMOGA CIRCLE, SHIMOGA-577201.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECL., O & M SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR TALUK, SAGAR-577401.
SHIMOGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI M.C.NAGASHREE, ADV. FOR R-1.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.06.2018 VIDE ANNEX-G ISSUED BY R-2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the endorsement dated 21.06.2018 vide Annexure - G to the writ petition, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondents to provide regular electricity connection to the petitioner’s premises in accordance with law.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that one Sri K. Gangadhara, S/o K.G. Naik, is the owner of the land bearing Re-survey No.37 (Old survey No.3) measuring to an extent of 3 acres situated at Analekoppa village, Kasaba Hobli, Sagar Taluk. The said land got converted into non-agricultural purpose and layout was formed for the residential purpose. The petitioner is bonafide purchaser of the site in the said layout and constructed house in his site by obtaining license from the Sagar Town Municipality.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his request made to the respondent-Authorities to regularize the temporary connection made to the house has not yielded positive result and the respondent- Authorities are denying the permanent power supply for the reason that, layout is not electrified in terms of KERC Regulations 2004 which is contrary to Regulation 3.2.3 of the conditions of supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka (‘Regulations’ for short). In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri T Niranjan V/s. Assistant Executive Engineer in WP.No.31133-135/2014 (dated 30.10.2014).
4. Learned counsel Smt.M.C.Nagashree, appearing for respondent-Authorities supports the impugned orders at Annexure - G and would submit that developer has not developed the layout in accordance with the required Regulations 3.2 notified in the Karnataka Gazette dated 17.06.2016. Hence, the decision taken by the respondent-Authorities cannot be found fault with.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for respective parties and perused the material on record.
3.2.3 of the Regulation contemplates as follows;
“3.2.3 In case of layouts where there is a default on the part of the developer and where the developer has not laid the electric line/plant within the layout, the Distribution Licensee shall recover expenditure towards electric line/plant as follows;
(i) For sites coming in the areas of Bangalore Mahanagarapalike, BDA and its agglomeration area and also in the areas of City Corporation and its agglomeration areas of Mysore, Mangalore, Hubli, Gulbarga and Belgaum.
(a) For sites having dimension of 1200 sq.ft & less, Rs.4,000/- per KW of requisitioned load subject to a minimum of Rs.4,000/- per site.
(b) For sites having dimension of more than 1200 sq.ft, Rs.4,000/- per KW of requisitioned load subject to a minimum of Rs.12,000/- per site.
ii) For sites coming in other urban areas within the Town limits identified by local/development authority, Rs.4,000/- per KW of requisitioned load per site subject to a minimum of Rs.4,000/- per site.
iii) For sites coming beyond the Town limits in the layouts other than those referred in sub- clause 3.2.3(i) and (ii), Rs.3000/- per KW of requisitioned load per site subject to a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per site.”
6. If no substantial work is done by the developer as required to draw electric line for supply of electricity to the layout, the respondent-authorities ought to have proceeded in terms of Regulation 3.2.3. The petitioner cannot be deprived of permanent/regular power supply connection.
7. On this ground, the respondent-Authorities are obligated to consider the representation of the petitioner and act in accordance with the Regulations. This view is fortified by the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in WP.Nos.31133-135/2014 dated 30.10.2014 referred to, by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Annexure - G is quashed. Respondent No.2 shall take steps to supply regular electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner in accordance with Regulations 3.2.3 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order subject to petitioner discharge his obligations as may be informed to them by the respondent-Authorities in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR