_ AND:; V
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 19m DAY OF OCTOBER "
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
WRIT PETITiON NO.31O267/2O.it)'fGM--I{EE3A)." " '
BEIWEEN:
Sri. Sathish Rai
S/O. Thimrnappa Rai
Aged about 40 },7e£ti¢sj'*
R/a. Bimmale £=IOu';se_--.'_ * '
Darbe, Darbie POs't_' ' .
Puttur Kas_ab3.V1111a;geV 3 V
puttur,;3.K. PETITIONER
[By Sn'. Adv.)
* .. 2 'F!_ié"Ap}n)E:!Vlate Authority and
Vfauvprarintsrncient Engineer (E)
2 $--..VnChar§r;v1.1_nt1eswari Electricity supply
' Company Limited
4"' My*SOfC'.
K V' ' s "I'1rié Assistant Executive Engineer
"'*A1\/IESCOM. Puttur Taluk
"D.K.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Vigilance Division
MESCOM, Attavara
Mangalore, D.K.
(By Sri. N.K. Gupta, Adv.)
=i==!¢=I=V=!¢*
This writ petition is filed Artic'1es"'2i;2t3 227 of
the Constitution of India prayyingA""to"'quash 'thg girder vide
Annexure--A dt.5.4.2010"and etc. _ V ,
This petition coming' on Hearing 'B'
Group this day, the (\30urt"rnad;e- the_'fo'11owing':--
The '~petition:'erVd served with a provisional
assessment"._at dated 19.05.2008 under sub
S€CtiQ'iV:1!V{2} of section____'1.26 of the Electricity Act, 2003 {for
sdhiorté __ He was granted seven days time to file
o:bjection'g7't~;~.__thhesvprovisional assessment. Instead of filing
it _ objecti,onvs:,. he filed an appeal challenging the said order
it ioefore the ixppellate Authority in appeal RA No.12/2008-O9.
e._'i'he"'appe11ate authority has dismissed the appeal by his
is;
order dated 5.4.2010 [Annexure--A). Feeling aggrieved, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard leamed Coun:s'el~for the
3. It is clear from the rrratezfials Aonreeord: that'"tl'1e 2nd ''
respondent has served' the pr-mlrisvional assesvsment dated
19.5.2008 as per Anneiéure~.B« under sub
section (2) of seCiLio_n 126″of:Vthe of filing the
objections to,.t–he fprovivsionalp asselssrrient, he has filed an
appeal, viwhieh;”j;was:f1:unneeessaijf.””‘Vilfhe appellate authority
ought tohaize’ to file objections to
provisionalxassessrnentinstead of dismissing the appeal.
‘ ~ ,4. .,_1n.ttheA”result, I pass the following order:
‘-.(i)hV’u7TheeI=Vorder dated 5.4.2010 passed by the 2nd
respondent at AnneXure–A is hereby quashed.
E.
.333
{ii}
(iii)
(iv)
The petitioner is granted six weeks timrsffrom
today to file objections to the
assessment at Anne-xure–B.
The 2nd respondent is:’Jdiret:te’d’–«¢to.; consi_der*the1
objections, hear the petitioner as pipovided under’
sub section {3} of 12″6’of ‘pass V
appropriate orderst”ti1ei’eon. in aceo1″dance with
law.
W1*it.:petitio_nVV’ V’of;«i?Xccording1y. No
_.cos’ts. .. ”
Sdf-3″
Iudqe