Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply ... vs Sri S A Prasanna Kumar on 14 March, 2017

Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal

                               -1-



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

                          PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
                    CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

      WRIT APPEAL NOS.5000-5001 OF 2016 (GM-KEB)

Between:
1. M/s. Chamundeshwari Electricity
   Supply Company Limited
   A company incorporated under the
   provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
   Having its registered office at:
   Corporate Office, No.29
   Vijayanagar 2nd Stage
   Hinkal, Mysuru - 570 017
   Represented by its
   Managing Director

2. The Executive Engineer (Ele.)
   Chamundeshwari Electricity
   Supply Company (O & M)
   Mandya Sub-Division
   Mandya - 571 401                               ... Appellants

(By Sri.S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel along with
 Sri.S.Sriranga, Advocate)
                                   -2-



And:
1. Sri.S.A.Prasanna Kumar
   S/o S.K.Anke Gowda
   Aged about 37 years
   Residing at No.218
   Sampahalli Village, Goravale Post
   Dudda Hobli
   Mandya Taluk & District - 571 401

2. State of Karnataka
   Department of Energy
   Vikasa Soudha
   Bangalore - 560 001
   Represented by its Secretary

3. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission
   6th and 7th Floors, Mahalaxmi Chambers
   No.9/2, M.G.Road
   Bangalore - 560 001
   Represented by its Secretary               ... Respondents

(Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, Advocate for respondent No.1
 Sri.V.Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate for
 respondent No.2
 Sri.Mayanna B.L, Advocate for Sri.T.S.Amar Kumar, Advocate
 for respondent No.3)
                              ---

       These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the High
Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ
Petition No.41854/2016 dated 9.11.2016.


       These appeals coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
                                    -3-



                             JUDGMENT

Issue notice to the respondents.

Mr.M.R.Rajagopal, learned advocate, accepts notice for the respondent No.1.

Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate, accepts notice for the respondent No.2.

Mr.Mayanna B.L., learned advocate, appears for Mr.T.S.Amar Kumar, learned advocate and accepts notice for the respondent No.3. He submits that Mr.T.S.Amar Kumar, learned advocate shall be filing vakalathnama for the respondent No.3.

Therefore, the appeals become ready as regards service by appearance.

2. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final hearing.

3. These are appeals challenging the interim order dated November 9, 2016, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.41854 of 2016.

-4-

4. We find substance in the argument of Mr.S.S.Naganand, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants that, virtually, the final relief has been granted by way of an interim order.

5. The writ petitioner challenged an order passed by the appellants, cancelling an agreement, in terms of the directions passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Regulatory Commission exercised its power under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and modified the terms of the agreement entered into by the appellants and the respondent No.1.

6. Whether the Regulatory Commission possesses such power, is the issue in the writ petition. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Hon'ble Single Judge was not right in passing the impugned interim order and in directing the writ petitioner to complete the process of setting up of the solar power generating unit before January 18, 2017, when the Commission has fixed the time limit as August 8, 2016. -5-

7. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside with a request to the Hon'ble Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by His Lordship's observations in the order impugned.

8. We, however, express no opinion on the merits of the case. All points are kept open.

9. The writ appeals stand allowed.

10. In view of disposal of the writ appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, disposed of.

11. We make no order as to costs.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE AHB