Karnataka High Court
M/S Viom Networks Ltd vs The Bangalore Electricity Supply ... on 7 February, 2013
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION NO.499/2012 (GM KEB)
BETWEEN
M/S VIOM NETWORKS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 &
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1,
'SJR PRIMUS', 5TH FLOOR,
7TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 095.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR GAUTHAM.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.N. JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE 560 009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
C6, SUB - DIVISION, BESCOM,
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.Y.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE BILL DTD 17.11.11 AT ANNEX-A AND
DEMAND NOTICE/LETTER DTD NIL RECEIVED ON
26.11.11 AT ANEX-B ISSUED BY THE R2 IN RESPECT
OF INSTALLATION BEARING R.R.NO.MSC 6 L G 2729
AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
RESTORE THE POWER SUPPLY TO THE PETITION
INSTALLATION BEARING R.R.NO.MSC 6 LG 2729
SERVICES AT NO. 1065/33, TRIVENI ROAD, 4TH MAIN,
GOKUL 1ST STAGE, II PHASE, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS
DEEMED JUST IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is a registered consumer of electrical power from the respondents .
3
2. On 17.09.2011, respondent No.2 inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that the installation was running by 23.89% slow. Consequently, the respondent No.2 raised a bill as per (Annexure-A) dated 17.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,26,403/-. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondents to furnish the details. Accordingly, the respondents furnished the details as per (Annexure-B) specifying that the back billing was raised for the period from May 2010 to November 2011 for a sum of Rs.1,13,373/-. Aggrieved by the back bill at Annexure-A and the clarification at Annexure-B, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The condition of supply of electricity of the distribution licensees in the state Government specifies the guidelines for supply of electricity, distribution, installation, reading and back billing etc., The regulation 27.03 (i) reads as under:
4
"In the event of test being undertaken by the licensee periodically as per clause 26.07 of these conditions using an electronic type testing equipment preferably with a facility of a printer attached to it, the following procedure shall be adopted.
(i) When the meter is found to be slow beyond the permissible limits, the Consumer shall be liable to pay the difference of normal rates based on the percentage error for a period of not more than six months prior to the test, due regard being paid to the conditions of working, occupancy etc., during this period and up to the date of replacement or rectification of the meter.
4. In contravention of this regulation, the impugned bill and the clarification are issued. In the circumstances, the petitioner to treat the impugned bill at Annexure-A and the clarification at Annexure-B as provisional assessment order. Four weeks time is granted to the petitioner to file objections. If such an objections 5 are filed, the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM