Karnataka High Court
Mookambika Stone Crusher vs The Managing Director Mescom on 15 April, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
{HE EIGH COUEI (TE IQ BE "A T41 ' A," 1 BA Egg LQEE '!if.E,I§g.Z37fl2006
1
AT XALIQAI 11$
ifi THE Hifii-i GfiURT GF Kfiififi .T:'\Kl'i'i A unwunhung.
on-no THIS TI-IE Iafi nimr or APRIL. 2qi:si{iTiTfiiiiiLi
BEFORE
me I-lON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ~N;K4.PAffiL'»':CIT
wnrr PETITION Ng._z:_z_1si jg' A T . T T
BETWEEN: = .
MOOKAMBIKA STONE CRUSHER * ' _
an! 113 PRQPRIETRJX. $.M_._'.f .A.J.L csiiiraiiisui = .._,
wio SHANTHE GOWDA ' ' '
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 1 V . '
RIAT MARLE vii.i.Ai3E CHlKMé\GAtU'R;
DISTRRST ' V _
T V' ivériiiorisa
Il'I-.fl\_. ll I"'IA!'\I ll ll"'I3I:'I'l IX' Al"lII'-.r\A';l_'l!'\
my mi N nnunurmnt , H.JV\J'*'<.rH .,l:}
Mun . '
("VHF u
1. THE'MA!\iA(;§!t31¢3
MANGALORE' .'
2 THE euiaeninrianiz-i_i~:i3 I"-.'NG'i'N.EER (ELE)
AND AF'PEL&.ATE--AUTHORl'"i'Y
MESCCJMK - -
i'3'r'l!MOGA
" ~ V-ffHEs,.Ass:vsTANf'%a:;UTivE ENGINEER
iEi..Ec,)-::i_.i~.~:~
" RURALSUB DWISION
'C-HiKMfiiGALUR
T _ _ RESPONDENTS
' ~ . {By Sri ; N"i<.§_iui5TA, ADVOCATE) .i V WR!T PETTTEON ES FELED UNQER ARTTCLE-S 225 AND 22'.' 'JF M 'THEE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOIQUASH THE ORDERPASSED BY" THE R2 SUPERINTENDING ENG|.NEER (ELE) AND I APPELLATE _'fluAUTHORlTY, MESCOM. SHIMOGA on *HlS FILE N0.7:17170-74-TAMD IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE iir.p.i~iu.msi2ooa ' I G T F T LO .N.'?'? 2006 2 APPEAL NO.46 SEPTEMBER. 2002 DT3-1.3.2003 AS PER ANN-B, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF [BACK BILLING PASSED BY THE R3, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)._C3~.,
8. M RURAL SUB-DIVISION, MESCOM, CHIKMAGALUR IN t=-'iiS-LETTEF?... DT.f!.2.:2i302, AS "F"EFi ANN-A, FURTHER BE PLEASED TQ"-f2iUA$Hvvo:"THE.'.r * ORDER OF BACK BILLING DT.2.2.2002 BEARING NO.5833-303$ ANN: -- .. A nnmac nu 'I'l,ll", nu Asia?
I r-nu-'aI:'G D: In: no HDOI. iC'lJ"I"i'\l'E ENGiNEER SUB-DIWSION, CHIKMAGALUR BY ISSUING THE'WR|T CERTiQij3.flRi.-. THIS WRIT PETITION comma ON FOR H5AR;é'NG;»._TraI$' oi£\*I;"'--:IgIE1ri_j COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
Potitionor in " ».E qoashin the order passei:i:'--i.;gy i Appetite Authority, March 2007 in Appeal ,No~.p--4S; viéurther, petitioner has so-ugh. tor"quoshifigti1.9;'i'rr.i;t:pugned back biiiir" notice datodV2'f"" Fobrqargr 'ioouod by third respondent. Tho footoin brief are that. petitioner has finflependent power supply through tho __.3.l.I._ _ 69 with a sanctioned "'--..VV'LioadL'of.'§?:Hp for stone crushing ; and another installation A ber:5g RR No.598 with toad of 5 HP for the purpose of III CHI', 0 iifting drinking water to the ompioyees of thn atone / / IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.7275I2006 TH [ COURTO GA . .7 6 3 crushing. Both the installations are different entities i and serviced on different dates and that, the inatal4|Vati.on._V_ W Lu .-i§..ruI.w.-av' _' i 1997 and another installation bearing it wae serviced on 6"' Mrch 1996 for:*atdifie~ W the ease of petitioner that, i'i'eeuing'iv-.notioe~ to oppfitunity t' petitioner and without _jfr'*re'ing ' " "
petitioner, the third reepondent'V-viiea basis of the audit objection £ro§2ii*~m i.;Agr,oiintaii::C5ffioer:'.f(internal audit), i-'b'~=d both_the".i-oeteiietiana 'ten.em'aun.lng to 192 ..P and demand notice dated 2'"iFebruargii2ti)02"\iide'"Annexure A under the HT _ tariff without .j_uetifioation, for a sum of Rs.1,77,291 I- .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .-.|.I_ witieeut Véfifif;§%.i6fi ('Jf fiiliififj ('Jfi Iiié Dii'i;'iunur in pay Int':
hank.'--biil|ingi."ehai;rges. Therefore, being aggrieved by the ' yaaid hbiiling notice issued by third respondent, it ;;.=s.»" itiienerfli hee filed the eppea! Laefere the aeeend '' .l._"V".'ree;pondent, aesaiiing the correctness of the back biiiing IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.7275il2006 4 charges issued by third respondent. The secoridg respondent being the first Appellate Authority, "
oondtr-ting proper enquiry and t*ritheL,....,.etteri.$ingi reasonable opportunity to petitionerigtfir considering the specific grourrdurged petitip'ner... even though bnth instellationsg' vyere:,'_AAser3viced independently on _i'1i'\iI'-.': been clubbed togetherand notice for 1o2 HP by epeugangil tariff,' has passed the impugned matter has no. been looked into' 'nor by the Appeiiate Authority except ..narrating 'theientiire history of the case and j"to__ disrnissl the appeal filed by petitioner, coniirming"fif_1e»'.'VVsck billing demand no*'pe issued by .V resp6ndent.'vA':"" Being aggrieved by the impugned order, H K first Appellate Authority, confirming the back ' hitting notice i..s.;ed by third respondent, petitioner herein it necessitated to present the instant writ petition. / /_.
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.7275I2006 LE flflfi H1011 QOQBI OE KARNAEAKA AT 5&3' GALORE _l2{.P.No,7275/200g 5
3. l have heard learned counsel appearing petitioner and learned counsel appearirggri rauen. 1-! nine I lI.o§.
4. After careful evaluation of the entire": irrriaterijjelp available on file, including the billiingvinofiee'Aa.ijd..the order peeeed by the Appellete AAutherity_, reepeedeem 3 and 2 'eepecti'v'ei'y 'r1a'v"e' {gr:§a'=l-re error in proceeding to univlvaterally without affording reaeo'né.b|iei'i petitioner by clubbing be... the Vene;e!!e;leee:=g:ete'e e eta" tee-u% the HT Tariff for 102 ofpetitioner on the basis of the alleged auditpobjectioni from the Accounts Officer. In punsgéficeer the saidiiobijection raised by the Accounts nor hae ce'i|ed':"upon the petitioner to have hieeay in the if M if rniaiter.,¢_ This was the crucial point which was required to .'_b._-e"'ooneidered by the Appellate Authprlty. Therefore, l ' " 9i' to View that, the Appeiiate Authority has utterly é~_p_.
/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.72'75l20li6 |"""""""""""""'] IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.72'i'5l2006 6 failed to look into this aspect of the matter4...end~.._ J... ...____ .._l _I appeal filed by petitioner. Hence, iniviewp of'1'non' 1' of proper enquiry and for net efiording eppertunity tc pe.2.§ener be.cre.fi§~.eeeinrg.. order, the impugned order'. firetflppeilate Authority cannot be susteined; ie;.|ieble to be set aside at the wit:hou't..g:eing into further IH l|l..'.§ I 1: .u_:- -_r,.-; V I mus t;a:e_e,3»_
5. In_Vthé'e5iigh;.g'jf facte' end circumstances of the case, thewrit petition4'ti~§ed"'by petitioner is disposed of V as f m;.ee;
writ petition fiieci by petitioner is i - inlpért;
|h|i]'f The impugned' order passed by 9 3' :2.
':3
2. 33 na 3 1 :-
32
* S. 1:.
cu Z1 9 oz. G ?
23....
'ER 04- +1 _ 4-..: .u__ :.___....____| - __ :_.._:_'Vm:..'_''_'.«>VV'x,:_:I. BEUBU 0 P355 Ina IITIPUQHBCI U GET, U|SlTI'l'E?9lnQ_'wIi_.i"E' i. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAl3_.NAT AT BAN ALO W. No.72 5! 006 '7 117170-74 in Appeal No.46 vide Annaxure B hereby set aside;
respondent for reconsiderai;ion;_- offi .: mater g A » T i' afresh and to take appfopijiaté' dooisoionji in compliance with theA_r._oi_ei(ant piovisiongviof . . .. . -f Distributiori' _ 'ptate of Kamotoiiap, 1-iiiafis iiippiioabie to the facts ..f pe.itioner, oiioi opportunity of _ .hoariiig and after considering-ihe dojteotionsxfl 'foibe flied by petitioner in i H' "* di-'-*"on issua-" 'N *''is lull ll I I GUI-I fill 11'' ll I .
Aiand dispose of the same, as .. oxpedfliousiy as possible, at any rate. within a period of three months from the date of ..___!._1. -1 _I_l_._l.2_...._ .£..._..__ ._ -.I.!.I.! _ ... _..., receipt oi or.-jecuons rrom PBIIIIDHBT, %_-2......
I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.7275l2DD6 [N E IGHCO TOP T ' G . 0' 60 IV] Meanwhile, the impugned back"
biliing notice issued by third m,ggngan:f:gii , _ péfiicfiér daied 2"" Fabruaijy --~§r:i'_eii§'f ~ Annexure A is hereby diraciw 'A as show cause noticVe._V:v"'~a.vndA'-[;is--~ ta file ,_o.hi-Hnnr"-.3. |.r'\r§-r1.u..'IIA within a period . i V1" directed to ' , . _..;.:.';;'|!;.___ --.:.u.. u__ ubUBu'=y|ull.l'{U _Ii!n Uulllpllilllfiu WIII1 IHB diraefions. assmw.¢hmva. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.7T':'5I2006