Karnataka High Court
Mr. Jesper Hougaard vs Assistant Executive Engineer(V) on 22 November, 2018
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NOS.42438-42439 OF 2014 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. MR.JESPER HOUGAARD
S/O A.A.G.HAUGAARD
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2. MRS.SABRINE
W/O JESPER HOUGAARD
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT
NO.17-22/1545
S.L.MATHIAS ROAD
MANGALORE - 575 001 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV.)
AND:
1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V)
VIGILANCE SQUAD, MESCOM
ATTAVAR, MANGALORE - 575 005
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E)
SUB DIVISION NO.1, MESCOM
ATTAVAR, MANGALORE - 575 005 ... RESPONDENTS
(SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV.)
---
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order
dated 30.5.2013 passed by the R2, the order dated
30.6.2014 passed in No.RA.70 passed by the Appellate
2
Authority and the demand notice dated 04.08.2014 issued
by the R1 vide Annex-B, F and G respectively, and etc.
These Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Shri.Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri.H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing with consent of the parties. The same are heard finally.
3. In these writ petitions preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, inter alia, have assailed the validity of the order dated 30.06.2014 as well as demand notice dated 04.08.2014 issued by the Appellate Authority as well as Assistant Executive Engineer, respectively.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners are in occupation 3 of the premises bearing Door No.17-22/1544 and Door No.17-22/1545, which initially belonged to grand father of the petitioner No.2 namely, late Dennis Britto. The electricity meter connected to the aforesaid premises is still in the name of late grandfather of petitioner No.2. The petitioners are carrying on the business in the name and style of 'Serena Spa', a Company incorporated under the Companies Act in the premises in question. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are providing lunch to the staff working in the Company during day time at the residence bearing Door No.17-22/1545. The respondent No.1, along with staff, visited the premises of the petitioners on 02.05.2013.
5. During the course of inspection, the respondent No.1 disclosed to the petitioners that premises are being used for commercial purposes. Thereafter, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the respondent No.2 disconnected the power supply to the premises of the petitioners. The petitioners, thereupon, approached 4 the respondent No.2 and the electricity connection to the premises was restored. The petitioners were served with the demand notice dated 30.05.2013. The petitioners, on receipt of the demand notice issued under the KERC Regulations, served the legal notice. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. The respondent No.2 passed an order in purported exercise of powers under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioners deposited the entire amount of `31,337/- under protest on 06.09.2013.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. By the impugned order dated 30.06.2014, the order passed by the respondent No.2 was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while inviting the attention of this Court to the order passed 5 by the Appellate Authority, has raised a singular contention that the order passed by the Appellate Authority suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'S.N.MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA', (1990) 4 SCC 594 has held that the Supreme Court has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In 'SECRETARY AND CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL V. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY 6 AND OTHERS', (2010) 3 SCC 732, it has been held by the Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, the relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced below which reads as under:
"By pursing all the provided documents, statements and available information the appellate authority passed the following order. It is ordered that the imposition of backbill to the premises bearing R.R.No.18439 by the Sub-Divisional is true as per the Corporation Regulations."7
9. From the perusal of the aforesaid relevant extract of the order which has been reproduced above, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has not assigned any reasons in support of recording the conclusion. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from vice of non application of mind and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 127 of the Electricity Act afresh in accordance with law by a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
10. Let the appeal be decided by the Appellate Authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV