ORDER
K.L. Manjunath, J.
1. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission in original Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 44.10 of the KERC (ES & D) Code 2000-2001 can exercise the suo-moto powers. If it is so, whether an order can be passed without giving an opportunity for the petitioner herein.
2. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the demand notice dated 21.12.1999 had filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. On 8.4.2002 the first Appellate Authority allowed the objections of the petitioner in-part. On the ground that the order of the first Appellate Authority was not complied with by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Kunigal, by invoking Section 44.10 of the KERC (ES & D) Code 2000-2001 filed an original petition. The 2nd respondent heard the petition filed by the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the 2nd respondent noticed that the first Appellate Authority had committed an error, therefore by exercising the suo-moto power vested under Section 44.10 has revised the order passed by the first Appellate Authority and setaside the order passed by the first Appellate Authority and simultaneously dismissed the original petition of the petitioner as per Annexure-E dated 19th August 2004. Pursuant to the order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, as per Annexure-E, a demand notice has been issued by respondent-3 as per Annexure-F. These two orders are called in question in this Writ Petition.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner before this Court is whether the suo-moto power has been exercised by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, without hearing the petitioner and the order has been passed behind his back.
3. I have heard the Counsel for the respondents’.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, has made an attempt to support the order passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission. According to him, the 2nd respondent before passing the impugned order had given an opportunity for the petitioner. Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the Petition. Relying upon para-4 of the impugned order, the learned Counsel for Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, contends that the K.E.R.C. has heard the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents therein.
5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear to me that Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, has heard the petitioner on the petition filed by him. But the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission has not directed the petitioner herein to address the arguments on the question of modifying the first Appellate Authorities order by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission by exercising its suo moto powers. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was called upon by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission to address the arguments in regard to the suo moto powers sought to be exercised by it under Section 44.10. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission to indicate its intention to exercise the suo moto powers vested in it under Section 44.10 and calling upon the petitioner to address his arguments in regard to modification of the order of the first Appellate Authority by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission exercising its suo moto powers. But Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission by hearing the arguments of the petitioner on merits on the Original Petition filed by him is not expected to pass orders exercising its suo moto powers under Section 44.10.
6. Therefore, on this short ground, the order passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission on 19th August 2004 as per Annexure-E has to be quashed. In the circumstances, the consequential order passed by the respondent as per Annexure-E is also required to be quashed.
7. In the result these Writ Petitions are allowed. Annexures-E and F are quashed. The matter is remitted back to Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, for fresh consideration. The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner on the question of exercising the powers under Section 44.10 of the KERC(ES & D)Code 2000-2001 shall dispose of the original petition as well as the proceedings sought to be initiated by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission under its suo-moto powers in accordance with law. All other contentions urged by all the parties are left open.