ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioners questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 19.1.2005 in proceedings No. BMAZ/FA/447 in respect of R.R. No. W-2-LG-11754 on the file of the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-C and further assailing the correctness of the impugned notifications dated 10.5.2004, 5.2.2005, 7.2.2005 vide Annexures D, E and G respectively, presented the instant writ petition.
2. So far as prayer (c) sought in the instant writ petition seeking a direction to entertain the second appeal under Section 44.05 of the KERC Code 2000-2001 and decide the same on its merits, the said prayer (c) sought by the petitioners does not survive for consideration in view of the KERC (Electricity supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-2001. Hence, the said prayer is dismissed as not maintainable.
3. The grievance made out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioners had got installation bearing R.R. No. W-2/LG-11754 with sanctioned and connected load of 55 K.W.+3=H.P. for commercial purpose. When the 5th respondent inspected the installation on 10.8.2001, he found that there is a fall in consumption and to check the accuracy of the meter. After inspecting the installation, it is rated and the electronic meter parameters are taken and in ‘R’ and ‘B’ phase currents are indicated as Zero and ‘Y’ phase was showing 2.365 Amps and was okay in that phase. In the above condition, the meter was calibrated and found to be recording slow by 72.06% due to non-presence of CT secondary currents in ‘R’ and ‘B’ phases. Accordingly he conducted mahazar in the presence of the consumer representative/petitioner herein one Sri K. Kumar, Executive/Projects of M/s Food World and the accuracy of the meter was explained to him and obtained his signature on the mahazar. On the basis of the said report regarding slow reading, the back billing demand was issued to the petitioners. Assailing the corretness of the back billing demand issued by the competent authority of the respondents, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal before the appellate autority of the respondents. The appellate authority after conducting enquiry as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of KERC (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code 2000-2001 and affording opportunity to the petitioners, after analysing oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on the file, has dismissed the appeal and the back billing charages demanded by the Subdivision of the respondents authorities is upheld and they have been directed to pay the back billing charges after duly adjusting the pre-deposits made.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-C passed by the appellate authority and assailing the correctness of the circulars vide Annexures-D, E and G as referred to above, the petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.
5. The principle submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Chandrashekar Reddy is that, the respondents have not conducted proper enquiry and proceeded to pass the order contrary to Section 27.03 of KERC (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-2001. The respondents are duty bound to make periodical check up and if they have failed to make periodical check up and point out the defect in the meter installed, the petitioners are not liable to pay the back billing. Even if they are found liable to pay the same, they are liable to pay only normal rate and further he vehemently submitted that there is no sufficient opportunity as such has been provided to the counsel representing the petitioners and specifically point out that the petitioners’ representative one Sri K.Kumar has not been examined and after cross examination of the witnesses examined by the respondents authorities, one Sri H.S. Ramanna, Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and Sri Subramanyam Desai, A.A.O., Counsel appearing for the petitioners as the filed written statement.
6. To substantiate his submission, he took me through para 07 of the order found at ink page 29 wherein it has been specifically referred that after finishing the cross-examination, the petitioners’ counsel/representative was asked to furnish the final defence statement within 7 days from 21.8.2002. Accordingly, the final written statement has been filed on 26.8.2002. Thereafter no personal hearing as such has been given to make his submission through the counsel. Therefore he submitted that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be quashed.
7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents has filed a detailed statement of objections, inter alia, contending that the impugned order has been passed strictly in compliance of mandatory provisions of KERC (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-2001. The appellate authority has conducted the enquiry after giving full substantial oportunity to the counsel representing the petitioners and after elaborate discussion of the oral and documentary evidence and average of slow reading has been calculated as per the relevant Code and the counsel appearing for the petitioner has been given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the authority. All the grounds urged by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal have been rightly considered and answered each of the grounds and recorded the finding and passed the impugned order upholding the back billing charges demanded by the Sub-Division office. Therefore he submitted that the petitioners have not made out any case or ground to entertain the well considered order passed by the appellate authority of the respondents and further he submitted that assailing the correctness of the Circulars issued vide Annexures-D, E and G on the basis of the relevant Code to clarify fixing of the jurisdiction and pointing out who is the appellate authority to consider the grievances of the agrieved parties to assail the back billing and other charges where circulars have been issued to the appellate authority as the guidelines in strict compliance of the existing Code only. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief as such. Hence the writ petition filed by the petitioners is misconceived.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
9. After careful perusal of the impugned order vide Annexure-C passed by the appellate authority, it is manifest on the face of the order that the appellate authority has not committed any error of law much less material irregularity. It is significant to note that the petitioners have taken seven grounds in the memorandum of appeal. All the grounds have been considered by the appellate authority including the oral and documentary evidence. After physical verification of the oral and documentary evidence and other material on the file, has recorded a specific finding on the basis of the evidence given by the technical experts that the meter has been reading slowly at the rate of 72.06%. The same has been noticed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (E).M.T. Division, Bangalore on 10.8.2001 and reported that the meter was recording 72.06% slow and reported the fact to the Sub-Division to take action. Accordingly, the Sub-Division has taken the back billing for previous six months from July, 2001 to February, 2001 before the date of inspection. Same has been re-produced in the impugned order and specifically pointed out that as per the Reg. 27.03(i), the subject installation bills were revised at 72.06% slow for a period of 157 days i.e., from 03.03.2001 to 03.08.2001 plus 03.08.2001 to 10.08.2001 and 36.03% slow for the period from 03.02.2001 to 03.03.2001 which works out Rs. 3,10,0837- and the back billing charges limited to only for previous six months as envisaged under the relevant provisions of KERC (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-2001. After elaborate discussion of the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate authority has assigned the cogent reasons and recorded a specific finding holding that the back billing charges demanded by the Sub-Division is in accordance with the relevant Code and further it is specifically pointed out that on the verification of consumption pattern from February, 2001 and also there was rise in consumption from September, 2001 after fixing the new meter. It is clear that the meter was slow recorded during back billing charges period and also pointed out that there is no provision to consider the request of the petitioners to revise the bill on average basis consumption after fixing good meter. Therefore as per MRI Data downloaded by M.T. Staff, the meter was recording slow by 72.06% due to non-presence of C.T. secondary current R & B phases and more over the consumption has increased after rectifying the defects/calibration and has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner upholding the back billing charges demanded by the Sub-Division. I do not find any error much less material irregularity in the impugned order. The appellate authority after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioners has proceeded to pass the well considered order. I do not find any violation of the mandatory provisions as such to entertain the instant writ petition. The petitioners are assailing the correctness of the circulars vide Annexures D, E and G which are in strict compliance with the relevant Code.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, interference by this Court is uncalled for. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance.