High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri B Ramaswamy S/O Balerangappa vs The Chairman on 12 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri B Ramaswamy S/O Balerangappa vs The Chairman on 12 January, 2010
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAI',Q_RE

DATED THIS THE: 12'!" DAY OF JANUARY, 20 
BEFORE 'W V
THE IWIONEBLEI MR; JUSTICE 1,.MNARAYANA.:SW}XM'*15V 

W.P.NO.3867 .1 --38672/i2,Voo9(G:ix1m:s~:E§13.i  '  * '

BETWEEN :

B.Ramaswamy  3 
S /0. Balerangappa " A
Aged 61 years

R/a. Flat N0.302
Second Floor _ V  :
R.V.Apartmen_i's'1'5TQ,-3} ,  .
No.19, Pipe]_iné»VRCi§éV_1d':'_ 'V _;  
Malleswamm _ ' _  ~
Ba11gaio1fe:;3   "

{By Sri.T;Sesh21gifi'   For]

A__»ND?2f' "

 . V 1}' T1"ie?C191ai;n1a11

'  'K.R.Circle
 'fA_'5g'¢1'1:'g"a](j},":@.V._f

2'~...__ A551,; G.--::ér1eral Manager
K,R..Circ]e
» 2.Sub~I)iv1'si0n. BESCOIVI
n 'T *- ._MalIeshwa1*an'a
_.E3anga10re~3

"E3. Asst.EXecL1t.£ve Engineer
BESCOM C2 Sub--Division
Malleshwaram. BangaIo1'e--3

(I.-By M/S.V.N.Mur1.hy  Adv.i'or R] 82

'f

i

 Appellant

... Respondents

R2}

This petition is filed under Articles 226 & 2’2′:7′:”£)’l;V’E.l1€
C0nsE’iiuii01’i of india prayi1’ig to quash the iei1ei”‘.iVri’e.CaS’e

NOAGM/M/C24O92/17.11.2009 found an Aiuye:’;;u:-e~_’i3._
the bill in respect of RR.N0.CZEH £3301 for ‘die .ii1:;iii§i'<){
December, 2009 respectively limd at Aiine,.Lii*e._~C.. »1'aise-cl by

R2 & 3 respeetiveiy.

This petition coming on f0i’}3.dfniSei0i1.4jVhisv

court made the following:

o R

The petitioner haeiCiialleiiged__..i}1ef:cider Armexure–B
dated 17.1 l.2GO;Q’-._an§§i ;2il:s«0 ._gix;%i’;j~.:e.:a;<i1r;s' –c bill dated

10. 12 . 2009 5:1 V .21;3l9i._iri the same.

2. Ii “SLl'{)’I}Vll’1:’i:.l::V’t”1 V413;/”‘«1″fie learned coimssel ibi’ the

p€UU.Ol'”i_€l’ iiigit._iricie.v”Arine2§ure-B the petitioner is sought: to

;;3aciv:A.bi1lir’igV”di”Rs.20.946/~. The said calculation is

or: i:é’2ifé’.Vis-4″o1′}:,n irispectirm said to have been made on

l_l3w.2OQ9_”e:’1.V_i’i:e further submitted iiiai” he is noi liable for

‘lithe said levy oi” back billing since he has not used excess

» life-,iAe.¢it1i’-‘imy .

At this jui’icri.u1’e. learned eouiisel for ihe responcieni,

submits iliiai the pet.iE’.ion has 10 be dismissed since he has

i’

foiiowing {he condition 42.07. iv-fence, i pass the i’oi_.!_owing_g

order:

The petition is disposed of. Though A..I1i;1*? }s’.i.iif€’~vB is –;»i_ ‘

final order. it should be irealed as ,2-1″:’iou«:.~¢ E3.’l1C1.;”:l71 (“.V pestifiorieiit

is permitted to file objections wii’Ahi_ri”–3A(.)

3 from ‘iotfay 2

without awaiting for any f’l’€Si’}.’v§’i’1″€._)'[i(?€:”. i’1’o_r1″1 iiespfloiidcenl.

On such filing of ohjeci,io1js–.~,the’wsresponCi’o:”:i>Assisiani

General Manager has toapias-s ‘fifejslfi. o1V9cier.VVs1r§ci.ly’ in terms oi’

Electricity Act. and 21.1so”cvo:nd’it’«i.or1Vs V-pijoirided under the
regulations.’ ,.”£Ti}l ii*n:’a.i__ or;;ier_” is passed, the respondents
are restrained.’i”ro«:o:; de[n:3,Vn’dii;g__Vihe3′ back biiiiog. However.

the ])C[iliOl)€?1’H35{.()’V}}&1y”I’._fié:’~-ffigulfiil” consumption charges.

Sd/W
TUDGE