Karnataka High Court
Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) vs M/S Ashraya Udyog Seva Samithi on 22 August, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33026
WP No. 1678 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 1678 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
O AND M W-2, SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM),
CHAMRAJPET, SIRSI CIRCLE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. M/s ASHRAYA UDYOG SEVA SAMITHI,
GEETHAKUMARI NO.47/1, MODEL HOUSE STREET,
PARLATTAYA S
BASAVANAGUDI,
Location: High
Court of BENGALURU - 560 004.
Karnataka
2. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL FORUM (CGRF),
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE),
WEST CIRCLE OFFICE,
BESCOM, CA SITE NO.5,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
3RD STAGE, BHIMA JYOTHI,
HSBC LAYOUT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33026
WP No. 1678 of 2022
HC-KAR
NEXT TO CHORD ROAD HOSPITAL,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN K E R C,
NO.166C-1, MILLAR ROAD,
MILLAR TANK BED AREA,
(BEHIND JAIN HOSPITAL),
VASANTHNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 & R3 - SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED
RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURE-L DATED 17.12.2019
PASSED IN CASE NO.OMB/B/G-362/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
R-3. QUASH ANNEXURE-L DATED 17.12.2019 PASSED IN CASE
NO. OMB/B/G-362/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE R-3 BY ISSUE OF
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTIONS BY PROHIBITING TO ENTERTAIN SUCH
COMPLAINTS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
ON B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:33026
WP No. 1678 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 17.12.2019, at Annexure-L, passed by respondent no.3, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, respondent no.1 was a Charitable Institution, rendering social and charitable activities with installation of R.R.nos.W2EH2812, W29434 and W2P1540 categorised under LT-2(A) Tariff for domestic purpose. Said installations were inspected by Vigilance Officer and found that electricity was used for purposes other than authorized i.e., instead of LT-2 Tariff to LT-3 Tariff. Inspection report along with mahazar was drawn as per Annexures-A and B. Based on report, petitioner being Assessing Officer under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, assessed quantum of electricity misused and issued provisional demand notice on 17.05.2017 and 16.06.2017 to respondent no.1.
3. On 29.07.2017, assessment in provisional demand notices were confirmed and consumer was directed to regularise installation from LT-2 to LT-3 Tariff. Though, Assessing Officer had passed said order under Section 126 of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:33026 WP No. 1678 of 2022 HC-KAR Act, read with Clause 42.02 of Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distributions Licences in State of Karnataka which was appealable, respondent no.1 instead filed complaint before respondent no.2 - KERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 ('Regulations' for short). It was submitted, definition of complaint in Regulation (2)(g) of Regulations, specifically excluded from jurisdiction of Forum, for unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of Act." Though, said contention was urged, CGRF passed order at Annexure-J dismissing complaint. Against said order respondent no.1 approached Ombudsman in case no.OMB/B.G-362/2019. Despite petitioner contention that subject matter stood excluded from jurisdiction, impugned order at Annexure-L came to be passed on 17.12.2019 allowing complaint setting aside order of CGRF as well as final order passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-A on 26.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed.
4. Main ground urged against order impugned was that Regulation 2(g) defining complaint specifically excluded assessment under Section 126 of Act from purview and as -5- NC: 2025:KHC:33026 WP No. 1678 of 2022 HC-KAR such, Ombudsman could not excise jurisdiction. Without considering said ground, order passed by Assessing Officer is set aside. Therefore sought for allowing writ petition.
5. Sri MS Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for respondent no.1 opposed petition. It was submitted against notice issued by Assessing Officer i.e., petitioner, respondent no.1 had filed objections as per Annexure-D urging various contentions. Since order was passed without adverting to said contention, petitioner had approached CGRF and Ombudsman. It was submitted, Ombudsman had considered matter on merits and passed order in accordance with law and same did not call for any interference. It was attentively submitted in case matter required remand, same may be to Assessing Authority to consider petitioner's contentions.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
7. From above, petitioners grievance against order at Annexure-L is mainly on ground of lack of jurisdiction of Ombudsman to entertain complaint with regard to assessment -6- NC: 2025:KHC:33026 WP No. 1678 of 2022 HC-KAR or order passed under Section 126 of Act. Regulation 2(g)reads as under:
"(g) 'Complaint' means any grievance made by a consumer with regard to supply of electricity by the licensee, provided that grievance failing within the purview of any of the following provisions of the Act are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Forum.
(1) unauthorised use of electricity as provided under section 126 of the Act.
(2) offences and penalties as provided under section 135 to 139 of the Act.
(3) accident in the distribution supply or use of electricity as provided under section 161 of the Act, and"
8. Very definition of complaint would exclude assessment made under Section 126 of Act. Nature of demand made in notice as well as assessment order passed by petitioner would indicate that it was under Section 126 of Act. Such being case, it would not be appropriate for Ombudsman to have entertained complaint exercising jurisdiction as done in instant case.
9. At same time, it is seen that order passed by petitioner at Annexure-E does not appear to have adverted to petitioners contentions/objections contained in Annexure-D to writ petition. Therefore instead of relegating respondent no.1 to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:33026 WP No. 1678 of 2022 HC-KAR prefer appeal against order at Annexure-E, it is found fit to remit matter back to Assessing Officer to consider petitioner's objections and pass fresh order in accordance with law.
10. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order at Annexure-L dated 17.12.2019 and consequently, Annexures-J dated 20.07.2019 and Annexure - E are 29.07.2019 set-aside. Matters stand remitted back to Assessing Officer to pass orders afresh after hearing petitioner and considering petitioner's contentions urged in Annexure-B and pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30