Karnataka High Court
Smt L Vijayalakshmi vs The General Manager (Revenue) on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30249
WP No. 1816 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 1816 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
SMT. L. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
W/O DWARAKANATH K.S,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.78, 79-114-115,
4TH MAIN, SRIGANDADA KAVALU,
SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE - 560 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (REVENUE),
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN,
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, VASANTH NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
3. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE.),
WEST CIRCLE OFFICE,
BESCOM, C.A SITE NO.05,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30249
WP No. 1816 of 2022
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
3RD STAGE, BHEEMA JYOTHI,
HSBC LAYOUT,
NEXT TO CHORD HOSPITAL,
BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 560 079.
4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.),
O AND M, NO.8 SUB-DIVISION,
BESCOM, SRIGANDA KAVALU,
'D' GROUP LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R4;
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED IN CASE NO. CGRF 24/2020-21
DATED 6.8.2020 AND THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2021 PASSED
BY THE R-3 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND K
RESPECTIVELY TO THIS W.P. AND DIRECT THE R-4 TO REFUND
THE BACK BULLING AMOUNT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30249
WP No. 1816 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Against the Final Assessment Order in respect of back billing issued by respondent No.4, petitioner approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of Bangalore (Urban) ('CGRF' for short). The CGRF by the impugned order dismissed the complaint, directing the complainant-petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority for redressal of her grievance. Aggrieved, the appeal was preferred before the Electricity Ombudsman, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, directing the petitioner to approach the proper Appellate Authority as required under the Regulations against the order of the Assessing Authority.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the back billing by the Assessing Authority and there is an alternative efficacious remedy provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30249 WP No. 1816 of 2022
3. In light of the alternative efficacious remedy provided under the Act, the present petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek her grievance before the Appropriate Authority, if so advised in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that the time spent by the petitioner before the wrong forum is available to the benefit of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT: BHK