-}- xn was KIEH coca! or Kaamamaxa AI aaNaALonfi"» DAIED THIS THE 5" any or NOVEMBER, 23Q$<L fi , BEFORE THE HDN'BLE Mr. JuswIcE§i.n;M3HJ3fiAfifi«__"5 wax: asmxmxox u.17225/éao%_(séfi3§;.: 7k': BETWEEN : Bangalore Electxi¢$ty suypig-.'_ Company Lté., Rfby its Asst.";V_" Executive Engineer (21ec,;;i. ".:, Ramanagax Urban Sub«Div1sioa,=% Ramanagar. f' V"u pzmxwxoana (By,advpa£é°fiz1.fl.K.Gfipta;7 AND: 1.
Mls Ghgusia Cfiiiefifi bf Engineering,
Ramanagéx. »RfbY.its Principal.
“w_2.5§§n§umx Gxiévanca Redressal Forum,
«._Cent;al”store Divisian Premises,
. ‘seaz ESE Hospital, Rajajinagar,
. <Bang=+e1or==sL–s.o.
K Rfby mtg thairperson. .. Rzsronsnws
(Aayp§at§4sri.M.v.chanaxaahéxar Raddy for R-1)
V<A;g~2 ,;; served)
This flrit Petition is filed under Axts.226 E
~€'22? of The Sonstitution of Iadia to quash
Annexure«F dateé 10.7.2907 on the file of R~2 and
to prahihit aez frmm entertaining any compkaint
cuming within the purview of explanation {B}
-4-
the petitioner to revise sizuw.-t–tezm 3
fox 5: Period. of 2 Years frm the *
detection of short claim & 6;”
Conditions of Supply of , ”
Distributian Licensees. 1′:$”I._:<5t¢; f
present petsitian is £.j_._led.
3. Counsel fax the that Rwz
has committee. sexieua; ‘.j_’~.:i,zv:e. ijésetting aside
the clamandg’ V15y::.__ Vfietitionex Qd in
dixeatiritj _ revise the bill
restrietinq . the fox a period of 2
years p3:~1c:x-L”to” the dgtet of detection. According
.-“t9 tntetfiretation of Cl.29.93 of the
V”€;c>::§:i}i;’tio:;es’ 2 6.f.._ Supply of Electrimity of
Dis’t;i45;1;si:t§;<$i::–. Viaieensees by R-2 is erroneous and
xequitea re-<:ona.ide,re:i. To support his
K he has xelied upon the judgment of
::hi$'c6xt in BANKATTI co-opaaamxvs spruxne HELL
ttntnj vs. xaanamaxa znmcrnxczwy BQAR9 {I.L.R. 1999
""KV.ER.–353.3}, M/S TATA. STEEL L179. AEE ETC. Va-
W
.6-
support his axgzments, he has relied 14:9cSn_”t~the
provisions of Sec.56 of the s1e><;tx1c11;§§"'r.¢;=;..I;,;é'::r}:s _
and so also the Division Bench Juag:n.en£1".§£–t.:::Bmnm§*–«..
High Court in Am:-Es}: s. ;
co. mm. mm ozraans ,u_a.:.s:–.,_\2oo7_..”.g®mm#:-S2:
Relying upon this (21 (Sf the
Electricity .§c.:t,2€i£1;3 finder no
stretch of jxnaginatiqh raise the
“n¢2«…é~*s~”< Rf
suprpl:menta..}…1.}i.1,1 the date of
qeteution "4:;§f..__ 'fifhgrefore, he aontands
that the. by Kw-2 is in accordance
with .1'aa;"and-._in£e;;$r¢t$t1on af c:1..29.o8 is just
andgprgper "::'e<'V;ueTsts the court to dismiss the
fie czcmtends that on the data
(if, passed by R-2 there were three
'the forum and third fiber was yet to
be agéointedjnmninated. Therefore any order
by R-2 in the absenzze of full quumm of 3
rijmlbers as a nullity and that the order passed' by
has to be set aside and the matter has to be
zrananciecl to R«–2 for fresh consideration in
<9
.3-
oonsider points 2 S. 3 at the first
before considering point. No.1 on mor;i_.t__sj’_.” L.
‘3 . Mr.G1:pta contends that ~’»;:hér_e’~ 1.5 3:19’
efficacious rams.-fly availoiblo to P
approach Orzbudaman since question ‘involved in
this writ petition i;nte,:,§xag–:;t:.pn of c;L.29.03
and sea.5s(2)__of tag;-e._:’_EiJ,e;¢:t;;§1c:;3n;jg’~1′..’.;.xc.§t,2oo3. The
powers on to bring a
settlanent .j_o;:_: E1» 4’t;=~;+oo:1ailj.ation between the
partiea in dispute and
the oanngfé the: provision of
iaw and ooneA’~.ng.¢.ni.nst R-~2. so fat as
th;i;s’5’~ 3 this court is of the
opinion «Question involved in this case
A h the V ‘ is in regard to the
interpxotntioné of a. provision of law and such
iintozbpxetation cannot be entxusted to owmadsman,
‘faint No.3 has to be answered against
‘it»/
-9-
8. So far as paint 1&’o.2 is
petitioner has raised the ground
petition stating that the ‘ V’
Passed by R-2 cont?’-’33’?
natification dated 3o.5.2Voo.fif
Regulations are RV-i-2 by
appointing one mare: £’orum uaaC$/
consists nf 3 shall be
the Chaix _.-:j = has been
issued infested under the
provisinns ‘ .. ” Electricity
Regu1ator3in4_Counii§n5i§n:a§i_; and under: Sec. 181 of the
_ E1ect,i:ici.ty VEuc:§,v200:.3. Karnataka Eiectricity
in ‘ _ A’ ‘ .,_Ccmm:§..ss.i.onez’ {Consumer Griavanca
and wvhudaxnan) Regulations;-2004
is before the aourt which elaborately
a cmmlaint has to be adjudicated by
” ReguJ.at.ion–8 deals with the
—–_fi;:££:3¢eet1ings of the Eamzm. Reg113.at.ic>1:–8.2
uijdisalaaea the proceedings of the Forum shall be
conducted by the Chairperson of the Farm in the
(‘Rx
” ‘.:”§.:.’s
tea 3,
E .
19..
-13-
shall accept the cash/<:hequefD.D. at the
cash caouxatex, if the payment: is trade undar
protest. "'
From the reading of the above clauae, .i.t is clear
to the court that the petitioner-«zomany e:.tther
on account of fiaulty meter or short claim 4'
due to errcneeua billing can raise a L. fd:::..:_ V'
suppleurental claims in accortiézér;-.e« A_w;:i,t:h~
Even though the petitioner-aoihp_aii2yA. ._
bill regularly based on wxfihg <:lVéasi3§:.cat§,Véh"' 'V
the date of .i.::sta.i.l,».=;tion tiétatihnar is
— sufpplemantal claim under
c3..29.o3;.. . not disputed by the
couh;:eltA.fot the only dispute is in regard
fi”‘.:O V. “K*3~’¢s of petxtionex to raise a. dmnand
” to the issuance of supplemental
bin .
Dfivision Bench of Bflay nigh Court while
ihteipxeting Sec:.5€i of the E.1ectr.ic.ity Act,2003
” MREESH s.2mm1:’sr Vs. TAEA POWER CO. LTD. .3232}
i’=/
{X-
:;m~( \b”°(F
-15-
Sec..56£2} dxaes not apply and ahcrt
dernanded at any time. This
rendered. by folluwing the I):_.eV3J;:1. “iVi:Lg?i:x
Court in run. ssormm Va. n44′:1N:m3:P.zs::..:v;;;ci§.t9oii;i:r:d1¢.u
or 521.3: mm ANOTHER V. ‘1.sis?3Vj’v_:1au?1Lt£ii’;..?;¥19)
Delhi High Court. liad He.:””jt{é;:1\§i<:x:v:«'« W§con.s.i.der
whether the 1.-.13.}. ef electricity
e3.ectr1c;;tt+5:f" _V the Delhi fiigh
two years also a.
‘ -t A s.’i_m:”..1.a:r view is also
taken ‘A ~ in smaawwx C0-0PERA’.i’IVE
sP;mxRs ” L’§;’D. vs. K.P;R1,~IA’EAKA ELECTRICITY
“”1t99fJ EAR.-353.8} which reads as
un«3.er.;’ ‘
‘.’~9._ f..-It is relevant to notice that a czlaim
be barred by time but nevertheless it
” .c;ees not disappeax nor it is extinguished,
in the event the claim is barred by time,
all that happens is that sum: 21 claim cannot
be enforced in a Court of Law by way of a
suit <33: othax procmding to which the
Limitation Act applies. The expiry of the
peried of limitatien prescribed for a suit
to reaover the amount: name, does not destrcy
the xight to the ammznt. It cmly bat: the
8/
.17-
actually due and payable to him from
fltor, whether its recovezry is ex _;mt–_
barred. by the law in torce for that ”
being as to the limitation of su.its.__*l
The folldwing are the»AA»9bsezv”a’ti£$ns’V”ma;;a
by the supraae Ceuxt inf B03-m!#._¥7, m.’!:I1~?*.’}_ V3518) fl
rmwrncwnzxs co. LTD. smm if–.pa’–:;_A
B%fil*1DO’1’EEERS:
” …. ..On this, the-._i;_-:ue.sticx1:1′–.;eIL:t*:i.S£’::z’V””for
considexaticn whethar a-._ dnbt which” is time
barred can be the sub;-ac-..1:”~o£~.. _trans£’:2:: and 1.15
it can be, how’ can the Board to
take it over 2:’ ‘ii: ‘«;:a*;n:aat*xea13.zed by
procafis at’ law. Hear it: ;i.a’:~, §:5_ice__ fiaattled law
o£ this that statute of
I.1n|itati;3n*9;~;1y *I_aar;$~7the but does not
vaxtin-g’_uL:.’..;~a11 5jt.f2:;_e= iisactian 23 of the
L:Lnv.t:ait;i.c;:i*V A’::t.. prcsviéizeagi. that when the period
l.i1nitedV,tn:s1′.;_:a ;.u.=_.-xtsézrx ~ fax Vvinatituting a suit
:Eor'”1ist;+s.s,«:’b:;ss:$;3;:*:’E: £>!fV”-an§*”1:u:operty has expired,
his ‘:6 is extinguished.
And the a”u.thc_:rities have held — and rightly,
that. when ” the” pxopaxty is incapable of
_”1icoe;gesus:i.on;”«..as« for ezanple, a. debt, the
_ “”sedtio”n~_I1as no application and lap-$2 of tame’
cV1o«a_a’Mx:u:;tL* extingwaish the right of a person
tI1a.:V:’et”c.’*~.V_}~ Under Section 25 (3) of the
A *C.ontréct’;= Act, a barrad chebt is good
»..44consi&[a;:-ation for a fresh promise to pay the
‘a*amc:’unt’.’ when a debtar makes a. payment
withtaut any direction as ta new it 1.5 ta be
V’ ‘A : t_.app:;*opriatec1, the creaitar has the right to
aypxupxiate it tcwaxda a barred debt (wide
‘STection so of the Contract Amt). It has
also been held that a creditor is entitled
to recover the dabt from the surety, even
though a suit on it is barred against the
principal debtor . . . And when 3. credits»:
has a iien ave: ga-ads by way cf security for
‘Er
-31-
the axgmruent of the learned czounsea. fer’-..»the
petitioner is correct, it would mean’-.”that
electricity charges would become dim: —
payable the moment ale-ctricity .1′._:_s:;’W”c:::.~::a3:ix;s«z-welt _
and if charges in respect tfnerexaf are?” ‘”m§_t’
paid, than even without a b.’LJ.1…%:;vg’=.,Vi’.s_::t;ed
a ncotice at disc*.onnect.i’oIs–..wof;1d ‘ iiahaué.
tube issued under Siectiqzj. ‘._2’z1A.’ This
certainly could not hatria that’
of the I.egis3.att1re:._ Sect.i.en 2~¥§, give3s “ta
right to the 1J.cen.s?ae’r.to 1333392. act “.«’V1._.’e:a:;.
‘2 days nctiae if ciiaxiges ¢i1i{!_tC5= it [are not
paid. The ward ‘dgf in this~c9nte:t nmst
mean due and iiayabla 2;. va.1:i.d’b.i.11 has
been sent ta time” cgcsagazt-;xr.1e::é:’=..VL’v»t it cannot mean 3’
days noticm :co3;ém:’s;:ti_on of the
alectrici ty a:;¢1V–.,;w:1.th9ut ‘ kzflaéiiiiésion of the
bill. _ tigougzj; t1;e’~.,”;.1_.abi:11ty to pay may
ariae 3._W’}’k£;.’§:I.'{ the is consumed by
the ;1$énti.t.icv:;er;._-._;:éve:zf1:iuVe3,ess it betzcmas due
;:mreaeipt of the bill, the
respezsxndentz: 21.fa.ve., ~~tV:;o power arr jurisdictien ta
; ‘ tlgreatezxma V’r:i:i..sc:’m1ec:tj.on of the electxicaity
whirzh hai£=«_____aJ.vready been consumed but for
w!i1cfi..&no 13.1.11 has been sent.
Section 455 of the Mllnicipal
* Act states that no proceedings
‘._’£~’c}r_”_~rec¢svery of any sun: which is due shall
be; after the expiry of three years
an §&”§3i€:3’: the sum became: cine. As I have
absezrrved, the electricity charges
due after the bill is sent and net
earlier. {£311.13 being .50, the proviso to
Section 455 wiu. apply anly when the bill
has been sent and the ramedy available with
the respondents for a suit to reccver the
said axrsount woulci C!t3§’l’|é he an anti after three
yeaxa elapse after the eleatriaity <:11axg-es
have become due and payabia. To put 11:
6/
-24-
Judgment in Banhatti Co–ope1:a.t:ive Spinning Mill
has been confirmed by the Division Bench c>:E~~.’§:Iz;i».i:3_
court in 13.2.2493/1990 dated. 19.12.1990. i
11. After perusal 9f the judgpgnts
by both the parties, this coi;rt:_—his A’
whether twa yeaxa pericagi
c1.29.o3 has to be reckoné&._V’ frmn “<'r.x§ii°£V’3w::ong
classification of ,_in:_§ta,i,A3§’£d_;i,§$’I1.. er fxéxm the
date on whiah petitioner know of
such wgbiiij? view of c3..29.o3,
it is ii ._ ta t’«’un.’V”*.f e:ttaa;§’t7;d right is given tn the
pei:,§.tic>ner;-{:=;fi;a~a;ay_ “riaiae a supplemental claim
– pa avcézazggit uof fauityv meter or short claim caused
-4.e_rz:>z:{é¢:_;s billing. In the instant case,
is made by the petitionex on
.az:¢¢1ii:t tif “é%i’ang classification. 3.: the time of
44″‘i,:ini:t.t3,1.1aVtion, inatead of xaising as I-1’1′–2.3 it was
@559’;-y treated as H?:—23 as a result of which
‘vtheie was a loss of revenue to the petitioner-
~ This fact was not icncwn tn the
3/
-35-
petitioner ccnomgany till the audit wing sent a
repert to the petitioner calling upon the
petitioner to recover the ciifference
said audit report is produced by the V-
as .A.n::e2mre-R13. Axmexure-R13″ is ¢a;£e’c:1ii’_5.”3..29o:
and thereafter as per Annerfireeat A.?3n«V3.
demand is raised. New t1’1i___s 11a..::t.’V’t:.;y.g;;az_m:;i.11Ve
whether the demand made as per
Annezure«-A dated 25i_,’3.,20_6? be restricted
only for the short prior to
25.3.2097 installation freak
whieh date ‘there *is'” Jof revenue to the
petitioaef:’~vc:.§ar1′;>aany,A V ”
12′.’:_V
‘:V.:].Va=1se-,_2E1.’GAVA8t”ie) reads as hereunder:
during verifieation of the
Ceugxamerf st’ account, if any short claims
caused “—-Zby’Werroneous billing are neticed, the
*..Const:u:er’i. is liable ta pay the difference.
Licensee shall fella:-I the procedure laid
under Clause 29.03 in such eases for
. preferring the supplemental claime.
‘ Eewever ,
the Licensee shall not recover any
marrears after a period or’ 2 years from the
date when such sum becanae first time,
unless
such sum has been sham continueusiy in the
(QM
-33-
periad of two years has to be counted from the
day on whiczh ;:aetit.ic>ner–c%y has same to know
of such short c.1a..i:n. ‘.¥.’h;i.s paragraph has
interpreted to restrict the period of
if the petitioner-company has $lept….,gugvgt”.[.::’the
matter even after we years
claim 9:: wrong c.’i.a:ss.i.f.i.cat,ion. ff1§arefo;éé:>.,
Ho. 1 has to be answereci*«, in fa?fi_51ir £3357; mthe
petitioner.
12. J2n tAhTe’~. ‘hfiétition 31$ allowed.
Order péfiséd by Annexurewf is hereby
quashed.
sal-‘»
Judge
4Rx’1?3.1o8