Karnataka High Court
Mphasis Limited vs Appellate Authority For Bescom on 22 November, 2018
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
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 NO.57973 OF 2016 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
MPHASIS LIMITED,
BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,
MARATHALLI OUTER RING ROAD,
DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL &
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL,
MR.HEMANTH ANANTH RAM. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR BESCOM,
MESCOM,
PARADIGM PLAZA, A B SHETTY ROAD,
PANDESHWARA,
MANGALORE - 575 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL)
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.
2. THE BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM)
K.R.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
BESCOM, S-6 DIVISION,
J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 078. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO
REFUND THE SUM OF RS.7,71,359/- (RUPEES SEVEN LAKHS
SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY NINE)
DIRECTLY TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH INTEREST
THEREON AT THE RATE OF 18% P.A. FROM 28.09.2015 UNTIL
PAYMENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr. Dhananjay Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.V. Devaraju, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, seeks for a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent 3 No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.7,71,359/- to the petitioner, along with interest at 18% per annum from 28.09.2015 till payment is made to the petitioner. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, few facts are under mentioned which are as stated infra.
3. The petitioner was a tenant in respect of the office building situated at No.8, Bannerghatta Road, Industrial Extension, Sarakki III Phase, J.P. Nagar, Corporation Division No.60-B, Bangalore. The aforesaid building was owned by one G. Prabhakar Reddy. The electricity meter was installed in the said premises. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 raised a claim in respect of consumption of electricity on the ground that there was loss of revenue on account of incorrect classification of the tariff rate. Thereupon, the Respondent No.3 issued a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,42,717/- to the Respondent No.2 for the period from 1.11.2009 to 1.2.2010. The petitioner, in 4 compliance with the provisions of Section 127[2] of the Electricity Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act', for short], deposited 50% of the amount of demand i.e., Rs.7,71,359/-. It is averred in the writ petition that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner vacated the premises in question and eventually the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 28.09.2015 and the back bill imposed on the petitioner for the period from 1.11.2009 to 6.2.2010 was rejected. Thereupon, the aforesaid order admittedly has attained finality. The petitioner, thereupon, approached the respondents seeking refund of the amount in question. However, the respondents did not take any action for refund of the amount in question. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the demand raised against the petitioner was 5 rejected by the Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred under Section 127 of the Act by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek refund of the amount from the respondents. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents in withholding the amount is totally arbitrary and unfair. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the consumer was not a party in the appeal and the respondents have to recover certain amount on account of installation charges from the consumer.
5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has invited the attention of the court to the copy of the communication dated 5.11.2018, a copy of which has been supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents and has submitted that even the consumer has no objection to refund of the amount in favour of the petitioner.
6
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid document should have been brought to the notice of the respondents instead of the same being produced before this Court.
7. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. Admittedly, the respondents had raised a demand against the petitioner who was a tenant in respect of the premises in question for the period from 1.11.2009 to 6.2.2010. The aforesaid demand has been rejected by Order dated 28.09.2015 by the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act. The aforesaid order has admittedly attained finality. The petitioner- tenant has vacated the premises in question. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there appears to be no justification for withholding the amount which is due and payable to the petitioner by the respondents. 7
8. In the fact situation as mentioned above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in case the petitioner produces copy of the communication dated 5.11.2018 before the Respondent No.3 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the Respondent No.2 shall ascertain from the consumer whether or not he has sent the communication dated 5.11.2018 to the petitioner and on being satisfied with regard to its genuineness, the respondents shall refund the amount due to the petitioner within a period of two weeks there from. Let this exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to state that in case the document is found to be genuine and the respondents do not refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date the period of four weeks starts till it is paid to the petitioner. 8
With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-