Karnataka High Court
Sri Junjappa vs Appellate Authority For Bescom on 1 September, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34150
WP No. 18262 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 18262 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
SRI JUNJAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDAPAA
AGED 86 YEAR,
R/AT 328, KALEKERE VILLAGE,
HORMAVU POST,
BENGLAURU-560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINSON M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR BESCOM
MESCOM PARADIGM PLAZA,
A B SHETY ROAD, PANDESHWARA,
Digitally signed by MANGALORE - 574 142,
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S REPTD BY ITS DIRECTOR
(TECHNICAL) AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
2. BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
LIMITED (BESCOM)
K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001
REPTD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE, BESCOM
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34150
WP No. 18262 of 2022
HC-KAR
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VIGILANCE BESCOM
CRESCENT TOWER, CRESCENT ROAD,
MADAVNAGAR BENGALURU.
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
E8 SUB DIVISION
BESCOM BANASWADI
BENGALURU-560043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEVARAJU H V.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER
NO.MESCOM/FINANCE APPEAL/A.KA/3298-300, DATED
10.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2013 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY (ANNEXURE-J) AND SET ASIDE
BILL BEARING NO.K8 AEEE.AET/4092-94 DATED 23.11.2012
PASSED UNDER SECTION 126 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
AS PER ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 MAKING
LIABLE PETITIONER FOR RS.7,98,395/- (SEVEN LAKHS
NINETY-THREE THOUSAND TWO NINETY FIVE ONLY) VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AS BACK BILLING FOR ILLEGAL USAGE OF
ELECTRICITY AS ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:34150
WP No. 18262 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 10.08.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 in RA no.35/2013 at Annexure-G and consequently quash Bill dated 23.11.2012 at Annexure-D issued by respondent no.4, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri Ravinson, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was an agriculturist, who in year 1990, dug bore well in his land and got installed Irrigation Pumpset ('IP', for short) to draw water. In year 2012, due to scarcity of water, bore well was not in use. Therefore, he filed application before respondent authorities and got disconnection of electricity after payment of Rs.60,397/- demanded as final bill on 26.09.2012.
3. Thereafter, petitioner was issued with proposed back bill demanding Rs.7,93,295/-, alleging that on 21.06.2012, Vigilance Officer of BESCOM had inspected site and had found deviant user of electricity i.e., commercial purposes by installing 12.5 HP motor to draw water for supply to commercial complex and residences. In reply as per Annexure- C, petitioner denied deviant usage.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:34150 WP No. 18262 of 2022 HC-KAR
4. Without consideration of objections, impugned order at Annexure-B came to be passed on 23.11.2012 demanding Rs.7,93,295/-. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. Though petitioner had urged various substantial contentions including ground that there was no material or basis for respondents to substantiate allegation of deviant user, Appellate Authority proceeded to pass order dated 10.08.2022 at Annexure-G dismissing appeal. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition was filed.
5. It was firstly submitted, respondents had not indicated any basis for allegation about petitioner using electricity for commercial purposes. It was submitted, as borewell was not in use, petitioner had filed application before respondents and got electricity supply disconnected. At that time, he had also paid final bill amount. It was submitted, petitioner's house only 50 ft. away from installation. Yet respondents did not inform petitioner, on date of inspection. It was further submitted, there was no material to establish that water drawn from IP was being supplied to commercial complexes/residence, etc. It was further submitted, though -5- NC: 2025:KHC:34150 WP No. 18262 of 2022 HC-KAR Vigilance Officer claimed to have drawn Mahazar, none of Mahazar witnesses were from locality. It was also contended that before Appellate Authority, Vigilance Officer who had conducted inspection was not examined. Therefore, impugned demand notice would not sustain. On above grounds, sought for allowing writ petition.
6. On other hand, Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition. It was submitted, installation bearing RR no.E5IP221 was IP connection subsidized to be free. While admitting that petitioner had got installation disconnected on 26.09.2012 by paying final bill amount, it was submitted, on 21.06.2012, Vigilance Officer had inspected site and found 12.5 HP motor installed to draw water for supply to commercial complexes/residences, which would be commercial usage. Therefore, demand notice was issued to petitioner. In his reply to notice, at Annexure-C, petitioner admitted inspection by Vigilance Officer on 21.06.2012 as well as installation of IP with exposed starter and wiring. Even petitioner being questioned about deviant user was also admitted. Thereafter, as petitioner failed to produce any material against demand, it was confirmed. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:34150 WP No. 18262 of 2022 HC-KAR
7. In appeal, except oral assertion denying deviant user, there was no material produced by petitioner. In view of above, Appellate Authority had considered material available on record namely, spot Mahazar, spot demand notice, objections filed by petitioner, order of confirmation of demand, memorandum of appeal, etc and passed appropriate order. Therefore, same did not call for any interference. On said ground, sought dismissal.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition.
9. In this petition, petitioner is challenging order passed by Appellate Authority dismissing petitioner's appeal against back billing order issued to petitioner on various grounds.
10. Insofar as no basis or material about deviant user of electricity by petitioner, it is seen that notice issued to petitioner prior to passing order of back billing clearly alleged petitioner was found to have installed 12.5 HP motor to IP connection and drawing water alleged to be supplied to commercial complexes/residences. In his reply at Annexure-C, petitioner admitted inspection by Vigilance Officer. Even -7- NC: 2025:KHC:34150 WP No. 18262 of 2022 HC-KAR Vigilance Officer finding 12.5 HP pump-set installed with exposed starter and wiring was also admitted. Contrary to same, petitioner seeks to deny inspection and installation of 12.5 HP motor.
11. Admittedly, power supply to IP sets is fully subsidized and free, when used for irrigation purposes. Having admitted inspection by Vigilance Officer and issuance of demand for deviant user of electricity, it was for petitioner to establish that water drawn was used for irrigation purposes. Without producing any material in this regard, petitioner's challenge would be hollow and liable for rejection.
12. Insofar as contention about borewell being not in use and therefore, petitioner had got electricity supply disconnected, it is seen, petitioner admits to have paid final consumption bill at Rs.60,397/-. Same would indicate that usage of electricity had continued. Moreover, back billing demand is with reference to number of units of electricity consumed by petitioner's installation during previous 12 months at Commercial tariff. Same was reduced to domestic usage tariff in Appeal. Therefore, said ground would also not hold good.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:34150 WP No. 18262 of 2022 HC-KAR
13. Even contention about failure to issue notice to petitioner, who was residing only 50 ft. away from installation, would require to be rejected as petitioner in his reply at Annexure-C, admitted to be aware of inspection on date of inspection itself.
14. Further contention about Mahazar witnesses being not from locality is spacious and not based on any mandate in law. Hence, stands rejected.
15. Likewise, it was petitioner who had filed appeal against order of back billing and burden to establish that same was illegal or contrary to law would be on petitioner. Therefore, contention urged would be an attempt to shift burden of proof on respondents would not have any legal basis and accordingly rejected.
In view of above, petition is devoid of merits and rejected.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58