Mr G Usman Byari vs The Managing Director on 27 November, 2009

1 W.F3.9865.»*'O9

N THE HIGH COURT OF I<ARI\IATAI<A, BANOALOR.E'; 

DATED THIS THE 27"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2059 ,1-,:  

BEFORE

THE HON'Bi_E MRJUSTECE R.N.NA<3A:IEII_ORAI$I'«DAAS,V _  

WRIT PETITION NO: 98'é5:/3309 It3'III.gI<EE3I   

BETWEEN:

IvIr.O.UsIvIAI\I BYARE
AG ED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

S/O LATE I~<HAEAI\IDE_R'E3vARI  _  
R/O KALUVINA BAG!LU:"\_-'  i   
GULVADYVELLAGIEIIO4  ~ A    .
KUNDAPURA TL1ALII§*_,. 

UDUP!DESTRE'C'T.OA:':::, 

 PETITIONER

(By Sm/IAHE:.":I~I'I<I%RA:*§T_ SE1)

_A.I\ID:

jV'TR_E IxIA«NAI¢.'T~--NO DIREOTOR
' f.v1ESQ_C).M'f°.I3:N}.O.2{}O,

 ~. Tv£ARGAL'_ORE,S72 001

.. r\;"A I I

E\/.EANGAi_OFiE ELECTRICITY
CO!\/EFANYEAT §\/EANGALOFIE.

 A THE ASSTSTAAIT EXECUTJVE ENGINEER
" O &M SUB DIVISJON,

E  EVIESCOM, BYNDOOR.

EMANGALORE ELECTRICJTY

FCOMPANY AT BYNDOOR.

cfW'~



2 W.P.9865fO9

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGENEER
MESCOM TALLUR DIVISION,
KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

4 THE SUB ENSPECTOR OF POLECE
VIGELANCE MESCOM, UDUPI,
MANGALORE ELECTRECETY   
COMPANY AT UDUPE. : '

5 THE MANAGER ,
MESCOM, TALLUR DIIVSEON; 
KUNDAPURA TALUK  '
UDUPE DISTRECT. 
MANGALORE ELECTRIQETY 
COMPANY AT UDUPE.   ;  

 ' RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.N.K.GUPTA,_A.d:v.,)

THESIWRIT PE.TIT_ION FILED UN={3ER ARTECLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTEON-.OTF. TNCIA. PRAYING TO OUASH THE
ASSESSMEN'E".._ORDER_ UT'; 2"4m".2o08 VEDE ANX--F & OIRECT
"THE RESPONOE-NTS TO RESTORE THE ELECTRECETY SUPPLY
TO THE P;O--LEi__TRY F~?.AFW'OF'THE PETITIONER.

  «THIS *WRI'T, PETETEON COMENG ON EOR PRELEIVEINARY
HEARVIAGSTHVTSTCAYT, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWlNG:~

ORDER

ER”théS.-__\}vTitT Tietition, the petitioner has prayed for a wrii in the

ce’r’=:iOrari to quash the provisionaf bi§E dated 24.11.2008

‘A{‘]l4’Ii;’?<IIJ'%'–@.A'5'~ F issued by the respondents.

d \/L=

3 weeassioa

2. Petitioner is a registered electrical power ccin’su_”mer’_..u

The vigiiance squad of the respondents conducted a .

installation of the petitioner and found_;that_pthe’reHiwas;~th’e~ft’_}&Voi’i’._V

electrical power. Consequentiy, respondents1’i’sst3ed”the p’ro\risi’ion.ai3i.:

bill as per Annexure ~ F and désc’oinii-ectediitinei powerii’siti;_pp.l.y, The

petitioner submitted his reply as per Giidatedu 01 212.2008.
The respondents have not yst’..p’ass’ed “f-i«rial.’.o~rder. Therefore, at
this stage, it is not proper iO|’A.Ihi5é’C.OL}i’.ii:Q gEani=i»iie “relief prayed by

the petitioner. i

3. “i;iOW~éVi.!ef’ “7′:pVietit:io»ner is iiberty to file additional
obgectionsli-f. an.y,to– order at Annexure M F within a

time frame of two. w’eeksV-_fro’rn today. The 2″” respondent to consider

“the ob§eictio.ns already’ ‘fil—-edr’by the petitioner and to be filed by the

petitioiiery iixaiccvordjance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

. ” «a”_’i”vi”.he~:;”respondent shail restore the power supply on

V _payme”n–t. of..’:S0°/at of the demand raised in Annexure — F by the

4″ 2′ 4.u’peititiOfi__er. it

*’UL\,’V\,. K

‘ I

4 W.F-‘.9865x’O9

5. With the above observation, the writ petition is hereby

disposed of.

Sd/–

dh*

IUDGEhjm:io