High Court Karnataka High Court

Ashok Pascal Noronha vs The Karnataka Electricity on 25 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Ashok Pascal Noronha vs The Karnataka Electricity on 25 March, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
IN 'I'I-IE HIGH comm' or xasmu-mm. 

DATED 1'1-as '1'!-IE 25 nm: or HMLCI-I  

was ms-rxnon H0.45§§_f2003_"'f§_;_';§iv': "

BETWEEN

[ml

.,%._.,._ 

 TéiEf' "Bi(' fiztifiéfifi n
naazc,-mo11z--o1

P-.51-IOK pascm. uc~11'omm;'   » A '
sir; Efifififrfi  L  A;
new Anmmfial  V
R.J.INDUSf3RI_E5     _  % 
 7V   
unupx mntrrx. ..j3zJ:a::rnIc:1&% 536101
Q 1   J %   .' Eswzwxmma

g mi    Am. J

rrru-H  nimmswn 'fin-.-?:|I

"T.-a
nmumreny' Vconnvzzsis

.3g§dFnuu> }

I-o,tau.--an

. 'HANG&'ait;£)1i;E ELECTRICITY snpnnr
 REF 3-': W3 m

mfialtxons
A. B..." SIIETTY cxncu:

" "1-!.l.'_i'=:_1\II311L-f_JIlL.'.-€_J2_L

|:fVl_TB I. (IE '1"l!|'I|fi.'k'IVl'|
1 III IIDD glut: it'll' L
HESCGM

EEPU SUB DIVISION
UDUPI TALUK END DISTRICT 576101

!5V'flf'l'I'1'V'I'|'1'1I"D B'L'I'£1"I"I'l'I'D'D
IIJIBEIU J: J. V II B11!-i'd..|-Vlllߣ\



4 'I'H.E EKECUTI'.-'E ENGINEER

IEESCDH .
UUUPI DIVISION

IIARUITII VEETHIIBA

uuurwnonun urn-urquounn-wu -w-- w--w---

ums mam PETITION Is rI3£.mr;'. ufznfi11
226 mm 221 or am'. comm:-nmrm _r.m~.mn1:n'%

pmwxm To nrancrxou %aw.msa%  "~.EIz1a"r
nmsponnmrr 'I'D consxnnn  nxspszzssron. ms:

OPu."'«i.":--r3".Hr':.."s': PBTI Ia'! ;..HO.3{3@9'§. V'-EI".......-"'D"~--.B3£v' TEE

PETITIONBR um um FILE. or  »::c,fn*.s:' RESPONDENT

nunmnxwr Hmrmz fir.-::::r:2i ~4;iE,aa Eff m
mnmwmm n:Ln:c:I’1tIcI1tx -REf5U1_LATOR1’~..’ ; . comrssxon
(ELECTRICITY _.SI’IP_E’L1g’f _DI5_TRIEi’UTION) cons

“.’H’\f’Ifl–fi’l .

5-\-r1-rv ‘I-I’-bl _ V . ‘ Z. ‘ V’

1:, PE”.II.’v1″iON-… Vcomns ON 2011
PR3I.IM1i_NAR.’£ par, THE COURT 1-mos:

. cause, the petitioner has

to ‘~::ongs’id;é’~r and dispose of i:na original

°””ag:azi:1§>n*LLno.a/zoos filed by the petitioner on

file of the first respondent authority

: =ha:i§a’ing regard to the 1:31-want supply code

A ” ‘No.48 of the Karmtaka Electricity Regulatory

J

/£~__

Z

Diatribution) Co-do 2000-2001, in the ints;:e§§–«i;:”–.tA

cf juati-cu and equity.

2. i have heard the 1Iey.«nr:A116u’p ‘:4.A¢ofin&.giV.,.t.’

appearing for the patitimgor 2 V

atandi ng counsel appeuingu’VL’t’£§1:_VVtht”x§é§H£3o:i§;1ents
ztoa. t L

3. ‘I’ho__ for the

1:eapondant:r3″ “‘4′:Ii::’,]a:u,!.’-ttod that, the

gragar .;’13i;:;!E+.saa:”~:’%t\ pat.f.t’:l.ono1– in

miactneveived’ 2mt*«.!..: 6 .119 921.13,: .1.–..m.-.t v

available to -t:fm:-_ :1.-§’a”i:«.it~~’:”-.’.i.c’::’:i::”: is to assail the

“”~c;:de.;;f’3’«:.pggfgsa-yd first Appellate Authority

appellants authority by way or

petition.

.. thin light: of the submission made by

tlaarnad ca-unsal appearing for tho

lifraa-Spa-ndenta 2 to 4. the leaned counsel

LL- ..§.__.t.._._.I_ …__..1.|. ….._J..J L: __ .E.l1_..1 I.– LL…
CS1 1.115? H.111; WJZL 1; PB TI-J. 15.1. 01.1 I 31.4. EU» DY FRI

patitianar may be dismissed as witha£¢&§7,

reserving liberty to the petitioner t@:as§fii1:w ”

ths carroctnaau of the orda; by wafi éfffiiifig 3.x

writ petition.

5. Accordingly. thy §r£t_pcEitidfi fitands
l4.fl;a./’,:,»{,,g.,-,g;_:¢.1_z_z:»\./. ._ .

diamissoqg All thc bnntantionfi urged in the

* ._’q’r “‘

w;;t pat;t:ag 9;: Lair ca§fi;Q'”

vs. Bxrgi” ‘ pe:;n:Lt:1:od to £11.
vnJLaJ.a.1:h*”*v~:.:f§§ ‘.’1§ii3;,.~o1aéin1§1t’és'”=2″”£1:-o_ 4 within two

as-..’I-1:

nu-vuv u

_Sd_/:1
Judgé