Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company ... vs The Chief Manager State Bank Of India on 24 June, 2008
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
2
MMMLAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
No.9] 2, 633 AND 7TH FLOOR,
MG. ROAD, BANGALORE~560001,
REPRESENTED BY rrs SECRETARY.
(By Sri:NKHE'I'TY,ADV.,F()R R1 'A _ M
SRIK.G. RAGHAVAN,ADV.,FOR R2 A '
...>A;§EsPQNBE§g;~}3%.iii _
MFA IS FILED U/s.41-.___oF ma
ELECTRICITY REFORMS'- Gi?DER
DATED 7.11.2903 PAssfiiD _m"~ ON THE
FILE 0? THE §<;.§eN_Am;{A:' fiz-:GULAT0RY
COMMISSIOIZSR THE PETITION
FILED No.1 SEEKING suo
MOTO >()F f*?Ht3 -COMMISSION FOR THE
REFUND GR BAc:<"':3$11;§; 33?; THE BANK.
on for final hearing this day,
the foll0wing:«--
Jflfiflfifl
" * VT appeal is filed by the Bangalore Electricity
Company (hcrcinafier referred to as
" being aggrieved by the order pasmd by the
.4 A second respondent -- Karnataka Electricity Regulatory
Commission (for brevity, 'KERCQ, Bangakore, dated \j}u'~ 3 07.11.2008 in Case: 0.9. No.35/2003 and also the om1_§r passed on 28.05.2004 in Case : O.P. No.7/2003.
The essential facts of the case .u,15 %_ ¢¢ AV as foI1ows:- V"
2. The first respondent ii1.'_£ha_appeal 3? Statei Bank of India, zonal ofioe is a consumer of the aypenant mspondent had two we. 37593 with sanctioned KWS. Rcspectivcly.
The 'V "C:d:s1§£$:it€ié;1t was inspected on o3.o3.19§3 " 51' inspection, the junior Engincgr ot; t11é 'vz=L;_):11;;:llA£'=-.V1_ab'1:~a;"'3:l*3CC}1\d., was accompanied by V. "'I"'i1e. ..... ..-.}un3'ior Enginccr inspected each .._it was found that there was excess u¥:imx1fhOnu'vzcd' j of 25.780 Kws and the first respondent 'was pay back the bill ofRs.1,28,307[-. The fast 'A x V' filed objections to the said demand and appeal "«'::<5;.t1sitiered by the first appeilatc authority and by a T order dated 16.08.1999, the first appeal was 3 ' V dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order pamed by the \/../9 4 first appeliate authority, second appeal was filed before second appelmte authority. The second appellate by order dated 04.042003, confirmed the ' the first appellate authority undexfi H .4 2 Electricity Act, 2003. Thereaflaero, preferred appeal under VA Regulation Act, 2000, seeking for 5110 gem of paid by the first mspondent' ~ - K.E.R.C., by the orders passed by the 1 ézlkowed the petition and directed the by way of back bill shall V be refgnded ifiamggiiamly, by adjusting it against the future 'of " ular """ "installment. Thereafter, since the the premises, Review petition was filed and 'wvéiéstoxdered by the second respondent - KERC., that the amount shall be refimded in cash _ :1 exifiatcly as the amount couhf! not be adjusted in future Being aggrieved by the said oxders of the second éifrespondent-KERC., BESCOIUL, has preferred this appeal under Section 41 of the Karnataka Eiectricity Reforms Act, 1999.
\J..»i 5
3. The main centention of thc case is that the second respondent -j'KERC.A_, to consider the appeal or o1fi §r~ passed by the second a;)pe]lateVauit'fi:;:);;'ityh ixngiex '1 of the Elcctrkzity Act, 2003,.' _ ~ -»
4. It is clear from ithc __Scction 1 1 1 of the Electricity Acig, A against the order passed KERCL, to the Appenate Electricity Reform under Scaction 185 read %§.1:e. E2s=cn-scity Act, 2003 and new", the " been cstabiished at Delhi.
Un;ieix*'the~. in vim of the fact that the has been constituted under Section 1 1 1 of Act, 2003, and this appeal is flied under inf the Karaataka Electricity Rciiorms Act, 1999, been repealed, the appeal before thiw Court is ____"' noVt;ma1n' tamab' 1c and the Sam 6 appeal mama is d.1rcctcd' to 'V V '4 for presentation before the Appellate Authority. The appeal shall be presented bcfom the Appellatx':
\}V..J-.
VGSJ E 3330':
G7»11~2008 M.F.A.NGLB6?59§G§3%d1 ORDER ON FOR BEINGwSPOKE§HTOef ° There is a typographidal erfof in page gap: the judgment passed on 2g.e}2oés, wnerein it iae typed as "the writ appear tsudisnbaed of? instead of "MFA is dispeeed'feffri*,f§hek said" error is corrected. _ A,W]e,.ddb . d ' Heard tfie learned Cddnael fer the appellant. In View gf £5; feet tnat:tne'papers have not been ret§§§§§ef§g;;7§:§§eatatr§& "before the appellate autneritydaed€g§~@§rrection was required to be carried egt.;n.thetjadgment, the time granted for fireaentation ef the appeal is extended by 30 days '=«frQm¢todafi;a Tne_ registry to take appropriate stems as pervthedorder.
Sd/-'§__ Judge Ndf* Ekiffiiq Iudgé