IN THE E-iON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKAR.A,N4, c§aiE'F'5i3sT"1C'EV THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 24" DAY OF AUGUST 2099f-.E_E'~V--,_ PRESENT AND Q A THE HON'BLE MR.JuST1cE \}.'@.':sA'3HAH:T--A. wan APPEAL NE§;593z2oo9'« MISC.'-W,.No_.Z,511/'2()Q9--. BETWEEN: sMT€sH§zIAIGA-mt SH;-EDTHY W/Q B....VVAE:pDEvA,_S-:4'ET3y AG Eu AABOUT; '6 5 YEARs,_ 'R/o_ BELGn3R vz_LL;AGAE,' A KUNDAPURA 'frALu_}EE'STD.E'NT/CIQEAIR-M-AN KARN.ATA.KA'.PQW«ER'TRANSMISSION Co.LTD., (KPTCL),BANG.AL0R--E. RESPONDENTS
IS FILED u/s 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH C-OUPIT ACT PRAYING To SET ASIDE THE ORDER
MISC.W.2511/2009 IS FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT u/s 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PRAY.Ii_\i««£§’-ITO
CONDONE THE DELAY or 329 DAYS
APPEAL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL.’A..:,oNG._wITHA.fAPPLIcA’TIoAifI.
comma UP FOR PRELIMINAPEI:i~riIIARI’Nc.f:oi§: THIS DAY,
SABHAHIT J., MADE Tir-iE”FOi_.LC}_’.’\iiN.GT 1
petitioner in W.P.
i\io.13′:’223/’2iVJV0′?»’f-o:ein§;’T.iiavgg’rieved by the order dated
19.o3.2oe$,Tr wheie.i..Tim learned single Judge has
disnjiissed thewvriitw pet;tion as devoid of merit.
“2’T.7″_~,._Tieappeiiant herein fiied W.P. No.13223/2007
seekingiforouashing of the order dated 07.12.2006 passed
0. i?\,;’s___respondent No.2 as per Annexure ‘A’ to the writ
‘pVeti’tion and to direct respondent No.5 to consider the
“”‘grievance made by the petitioner as per the compiaint
dated 14.02.2006 and to direct the respondents to take
J
appropriate action provided under Sections 139 and .140 of
the Karnataka Electricity Act.
2.1 It is averred in the wr_i;t..petitio_nthatljjthle’ h’_o&useéu
bearing No.2/89 of Hakiadi Pa’nch1’a’ya:t
No.1/10 of Hakiadi viliage beionged toone Si’n’t.A¥S’i’ddai;nmaW’
Shedty. She applied for of.’eie¢i-friciyiify to the
said house and the ei’e.ctrica_lg. Was granted by
order dated 05.09.1923;v:i?u’&rsuaéi:i,t_ said order, she
enjoyed tqrtiivellslaicilhouse without any
hindrance She died leaving
behind?’ daughters inciuding the
petitionelrtjl . The bearing No.2/89 was in
existence duVriing_V’Aipril’v’1995. In the meantime, the sons
. the:’&da’ug_hters’Wof Siddamrna Shedthy exciuding the
at”–p’etiitioiiei*,J iii’eg*aliy without the permission of the
paintcyhayvatand without obtaining the licence as required
R””‘~..VV”ugnderxthé iaw, began to construct the house adjacent to
it house bearing No.2/89. Being aggrieved by the
illegai act, the petitioner approached the Principal Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kundapura, by filing O.S. No.655/1992
F?
\_2″‘
petitioner personaliy approached the fifth respondent. But,
the fifth respondent refused to give acknowledge.m.e:iit_fand
refused to consider the grievance of the
aggrieved by the said act of…respondVenti:’_fVNo;i5V.’.Vthe”‘
petitioner fiied W.P. i\io.8281/zoos l:g’efo;reé’iithi’s
alia seeking for a direction to”:espon’derit No…SXto–i.cVonisidei=.f
the complaint / appeal and ntoflco_nsvi_»der.ail_:t:hgtgrievance
made by the petitio’ner_. and to take
aphropriate action 140 of the
Electricity disposed of on
first respondent to
consider theifggiiiievaiice’ petitioner.
“2..3 1t”‘is_V_Vfufrthe:r averred that the matter was taken
u.p»Khy respondent as per the direction of this Court
i_i’i”7.__V\n.’.\i’.”F’4.°g.,i§lC28281/2006. However, respondent No.2,
witiioui.”issi;i’ing notice to the persons, who had violated the
order and without considering the written statement filed
the petitioner on 07.12.2006, proceeded to pass the
-~-‘order on the same day holding that the petitioner is not
entitled to any reiief as sought for. Being aggrieved by the
\/t
Dn.), Kundapura, being aggrieved by the rejection of her
prayer for mandatory injunction against the defendwants in
O.S. No.655/1992 and the same is pending con.s’Ederaftlo’n.
The question as to whether shifting of electrical
by the defendants in 0.8. No.6S5fil’9’s’i’2.fflroAm house
bearing No.2/89 of Hakladi Pa»nc__h:’a-yalt toltlieir
constructed house bearing Vl\io:.2,/83 as to’
whether the writ petivtioxn shgou’ld.”._t;e”a.l’l._owed’as sought for
in the writ appeal are of fact and the
same have of the civil
dispute ori record would clearly
show ‘occupation of the property in
qnluestiori tax and electricity bills are
being paid~regirlari_y.’._Ti’ae”appeilant here is not a consumer
inv_i:riesp_ectV%_ oflhsupplyv of electricity. The appellant has
‘ élwilreadyfléapvp.ro’a.ched the Civil Court seeking for reliefs and
has’vlfiiedu*.ti’;is£=’writ petition alleging disputed questions of
fact. ..Ll’n;der the circumstances, it is clear that the question
of going into the disputed questions of fact in exercise of
Awritljurisdiction of this Court does not arise and it is open
“Vito the appellant to work out her rerrredy in R.A.
K_/”5
-11-
No.81/2005, which is filed by her. Learned single Judge,
having regard to the above said facts, hasp.–rightly
dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. ‘.r\IVe’l:.dg:og:’not
find any error or illegality in the order of the -ifeiarned’:s’ing’ie
Judge as to call for interference in this intra it
7.1 There is a delay of 3.29 .days ‘ii.nf.iling”the writ
appeal and Misc. W. i\lo.253;i1,-‘..;OO9V’is_,filed
of the said delay. The order4’l:’o.f:’thVe sin:gle Judge
was passed on .i'”l”~–t1_igsA.:’appeal filed on
13.03.2009. It is averredihin. filled by the G.P.A.
holder of Vloffthe application that
the Taluk and is aged
about:6S! her advanced age, she could
not provigde in time to her counsel at
Bangalore. ‘V It__is”further averred that the delay caused in
«filing above appeai is neither intentional nor deliberate
Ither..VV”_aVp.ip.eilant has very good case on merit and
wherefoi’e.l.«:”” the delay in fiiing the writ appeal may be
..condo’n~éd. It is clear from the averments made in the
W_Va’ffidéavit that no cause much less any sufficient cause has
k?’
% __Ir:1dex: Yes/No}//’
Web Host: Yes’/No
-12-
been made out for condoning the inordinate delay of 329
days in fiiing the writ appeai and wherefore, we ..::’i’O:1:.C’§’..»_fi’3g’.Ait
sufficient cause is not made out for
inordinate delay of 329 days in__.fiii_ng the'”‘»»;.'(y;tV”‘ap’pea.:v_f
Accordingiy, Misc. w. No.25:1/2009 Es’_’tE~iTsnf:*3ser:i:’;
Consequentiy, the WritV___!i¥pp_eaic_» is idisrniflsseid on the
ground of iimitation as”wei|_as on :,rne-rfitsp}’i _
Sd/-‘
%%%% H Chief Tustice
Sd/-
JUDGE