Ravi Products vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner, a registered Electrical Power Consumer, when sanctioned with load of 150 KVA for industrial purposes, the vigilance squad of the respondents inspected the industry and alleged unauthorised connection of excess load of 67.65 HP to LT-5 and 28.06 KW for LT-3. The demand notice that ensued was subject-matter of appeal before the First Appellate Authority-Superintendent Engineer, who partly allowed the same by order dated 30-3-2002, which when not to the satisfaction of the petitioner, filed a second appeal before the Chief Engineer (General), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Electricity Act, 2003 was Drought into force with effect from 10-6-2003, whence there was no scope for a second appeal and therefore the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was treated as closed by order dated 31-3-2005. Petitioner, thereafterwards, approached the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, ''KERC'') challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority, whence by order dated 15-1-2009 petition was rejected on the ground of maintainability. That order was called in question in W.P. No. 5400 of 2009, whence a learned Single Judge by order dated 20-10-2009, Annexure-L allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 30-3-2000 of the First Appellate Authority-Superintendent Engineer and read down the demand notice dated 11-9-2000 as show-cause notice permitting the petitioner to file objections within four weeks and directed the Assistant Executive Engineer (EI) (C, O and M) to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and also continue to supply power. It appears petitioner filed objections dated 24-11-2009, Annexure-M, whereafterwards, the Assistant Executive Engineer addressed a letter dated 15-1-2010, Annexure-A stating that the appeal case before the Superintendent Engineer -- First Appellate Authority, was decided and ordered to pay the back billing charges of Rs. 3,94,892/- which was since paid and though the High Court had permitted filing objections, since the amount paid will not be refunded and as there was a provision for a Second Appellate Authority, rejected the objections. Sri Sridhar Hiremath, learned Counsel for the respondent-BESCOM, on reading the letter Annexure-A submits that there is something amiss in the order since the direction issued by this Court in the order Annexure-L is to the Assistant Executive Engineer to pass orders on the objections filed by the petitioner while the communication does not disclose application of mind. Learned Counsel is very candid in his submission that it is open for the Court to perceive the order in its right perspective.

Suffice it to state that the Assistant Executive Engineer failed to comply with the directions in the order of this Court Annexure-L and therefore the communication Annexure-A borders around contempt of Court.

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the officer concerned, the order Annexure-A is quashed. Petition is ordered accordingly. The 2nd respondent is directed to comply with the order Annexure-L in W.P. No. 5400 of 2009 within a fortnight from today.