1 W.P.181-44/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE;-<.o'j%e~~.oVv DATED THIS THE 18?" DAY ore' OCTOBER 2Qro if BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s..4BD£iL ..m21$'ER e x f' * T WRIT PETITION N0.I83}14;f2010 _'(G1|V'/I-KEr':'V)"A A BETWEEN: M/s.Carpenters Classic Exim (P')'Ltde., * Z A Company incorporated under the" vv A Companies Act, 1956 haVi._ngitf~;A _ - Registered office at?SIo.«i;2.T1'4, 1'?' Freer, _ Bangaiore Represented by its ' _ V _ Director Sri.Ra ej Kamm.biahA§' _ " V ...Petitioner 100 Feet ifiVdiranagar~,VVV-- :_.~(By_Sri..S_}i?.Srrank_ar, sr§'Ad--~.e, for Sri.K.S.Harish, Adv.,) Assogf» * ' V1. "The'AsSisfant:Executive Engineer, ((:..__0 &.'M.),}E-6, Sub--Division, .V BESCOM, Indiranagar, AA Bangaiore -- 560 038. 2 W.P.l8'f44/2010 2. Mrs.Padmarnal.ini G.Rao, W/o Mr.G.Venl<atesh Rae, Major, R/a No. 1214, 1" Floor, .100 Feet Road, HAL ll Stage, Endiranagar, Bangalore --~ 560 008. ...Responden,ts' i (By Sri.N.K.Gupta, AdV., for R1; R2 ---- Served, unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under_..jiV\irti_clesV 220' the Constitution of India praying toquash the endorsement issued by the respondent dated 04.05.2010 per"A1in.exitre§4}'E"';
This petition coming: on for’preii.inina,ry_ ‘B’ Group,
this day, the Court made’t:he’ ‘fo11’owi:_1i_;;:~£ AV
The secio1idiirespo’ndent’ ‘owner of immovable property
bearing l\to.’i”2l’4, .,V_l3e’et HAL 2″” Stage, Indiranagar,
fwd/iiiitienements. The petitioner is a tenant in
respect,_o’f__one*the,ppreiniises in the said property. The petitioner has
iV’,;–piVpiro_duced acopayiof lease deed executed by the 2″” respondent in
,ihi.s”‘faviouir_ at°’Annexure ‘A’. The second respondent is also in
‘0 ‘-.V_iioccpu.pat.ion of one of the premises in the said building. The electricity
gnetefih respect of the premises in occupation of the petitioner is
3 w.P.ls144/2010
located within the premises in occupation of the second respondent.
The meter box is locked and the keys are kept with
respondent. For the purpose of noting the meter reaidings*-.:arld
preparing the monthly bill, the metering staff of the
go over to the rear side of the building, which is.Vexclusiyfe1y-within”. if
the control and possession of the secon’dvs.respondent..it of
the petitioner that the differences Directorifof the
petitionencornpany and the second resulted in
filing of a suit for V..o__fiflthe premises in
occupation of theiipetitronerfiin» on the file of the
City Civil Judge,_ Mayohallvi’«Ban.gaiore.. Can account of the differences
as above, the second responde’n,tuprevented access to the meter board
located w:2;thin,herihouse.f’ It is further contended that the second
respondent nranagedto get the electricity supply disconnected to the
petitiionerfs. preinisesll’r;”JVheneVer the staff of the petitioner-company
rvent to the in occupation of the second respondent to check
.»electrrcit3t_p_supply or for inspection of the connection, she started
of criminal trespass on to her property. She has filed
‘ c’rinfina1 complaints against the Directors of the petitionerwcotnpany
is
9′
4 W.F’.f814-M2010
on frivolous grounds. It is further contended that the second
respondent went to the extent of approaching the Passport Ql7fi_cer: ” .
to renew the passport of its Director Sri Ravi Karurnhaiah his 3
travel outside India. The Director of the petitionergciompanyhi 1~.aaito’__
approach this Court in W.P.No.224,4_6/200i9~.Aan.d got,i.–‘V.a.iA.wtit V
tnandarnus issued to the Passport Officer’s»tio’r» renewal.i_ofif’
The criminal cases filed thevvipetiitionen
company are still pending beforev”the The said
proceedings have be’en”‘Asgtayed:3._ Court. The
relationship between respondent has
become so ‘vj1,_hatV_.i::€the respondent having illegally
disconnected tlieyeliectricity premises of the petitioner, is
not allowjrfg igtispplyiof electricity to be restored. On 2.2.2010, the first
i’respo’rid.ent sentia _l_etter at Annexure ‘C’ to the petitioner expressing
theiri”ina’e’i_lity”‘to’restore”power supply the owner has prevented the
staff of ithe v–BES£’lOM to restore power supply. Therefore, the
“petitione.r__is cornpelled to arrange for supply of electricity through
‘2 generatoras an alternative mode. On 28.4.2010, the petitioner sought
0 teniporary/alternative power supply with the BESCOM since
iii
E,
2
5 W.P.18144/2019
supply of electricity through generator .is very expensive. The
petitioner is facing a piquant situation of having been denied the
supply of electricity by the owner and mounting cost of altemagtive
supply of eiectricity. The BESCOM has sent a letter as per ”
‘E’ dated 4.5.2010 informing that temporary power supp1y_’cannot Z
arranged to the premises in its occupation» as pperithe F{egu:lations.ii.__gi’
Therefore, the petitioner has .»filed tiiis writdpetition 1 the
following reliefs:
“(a) Quash by a writ of ciertivorari. or any’.othe1¥io–r”der or
directjllonwin theuendorsement issued
by thé”rfiépondefit:’.?58%1fiI1g’–No,AEE/E6SC/AECTS/F»
9/91 dated 4_4.5.?,0lVO_as’.per.i§.11nexure ‘E’.
‘i V. – lssizee a “writ of inandyamus directing the respondent
grant.:_an.ialtera.ative and direct electricity supply to
‘the»exclnsiyfewfnise of the petitioner by installing a
separate: ‘meter in the premises in occupation of
petitioner.
To pass any other appropriate relief. And
it
a’
5 W.P.18t44/2010
(d) Award the costs of this writ petition.”
2. Though the second respondent is served, she has;§i_’reni’ai’rf1’ed _
unrepresented.
3. Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Ady’o_cate.appear’i’ng”for it
petitioner would contend that since themrizeter of” is
situated within the premises in ‘jo<':.(;upati'oin-second' respondent,
the first respondent is not in a posiition supply to
the petitioner's is account of non-
supply of electricity, the’peitiitionerisputto great hardship and loss. It
is further argue-:1″ thatvh-ayingi”rehgard “to the amendment to the
‘Conditions of Siupplyot’ of the Distribution Licensees in
the State Kar’nataka'”,”-wh_ic_hhas come into force with effect from
2G..3.2Q(}8,Vti1eVpetitioner is entitled for aw separate connection and
vinstallationwtof aiseparagte meter in its premises.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits
5._i_'”that«theVt’irs~t. respondent is ready to provide electricity to the premises
‘ petitioner, if it is permissible in law.
it
./
7 W.P.18144/2010
5. it is clear from the materials on record. that the peititeii{)nej<« is a
tenant of the aforesaid premises under the sec'ondTfg:sponid~e1i't._ lt is
in dispute that the meter of the petitioneris…preniises_ is sVitiaatAed'witl':'l;n
the premises in occupation of the second–reisp0nd~ent. ."iFh'ati_S the
first respondent has issued an as per
Annexure 'E' dated.v4._5:;2.__0lO power supply
cannot be arrange€d«'td"i.ts A i
6. ofiiiSHuipply of Electricity Supply
of DistributionLicensesVlfoeshor’t_:iEiSupply Regulations’) in the State
of Karnat.algav provides. for the general procedure for arranging power
of 4.02 of the Supply Regulations states
that power from” only one source should be provided to the
li”ipremises”‘o_f the ‘applicant. The said Regulation has been amended by
.._l.i’i.:rioti:fieati0n ..l\Eo’.KERC/COS/D/07/08 dated 14.3.2008, which has
force on 20.3.2008. The amended Regulation is as under:
3
2
3
‘mi
5.
8 W.P.18144/2010
Sl.No. Clause No. As amended
1 402(4) Power supply to building/premises. * V
HT or Land Tribunal or combipn’atioi;._i.of
HT & Land Tribu_nal.__t’hrough “separate
distinct service mains _can he ‘1a1’ra_nge=:1_;”
a common isolation point. The. service 1
main cables sha,_ll”‘have distincst ‘idevntityand
separation. Meteriirig arrangements shall
be at the ground–floor only. Power supply
to diff’c.1je’n.t types of “eo._nsu’rn_ers in building!
premises’ can be_a:rrangeti_ through separate
V\/Ls having’ c.omr_nc:n isolvatio’n–.p’oint.
4.:Wh_ile ;_doing”‘so,_the*Licen’:;ee shall obtain
_ pupnidertakingil .from*——the Consumer!
~ VCvon’;;umers_ for ensuring’ safety arising out
of provitiing., inipply to that premises
“”” I thi:5O’/”git-diffe1″ent’rse-rvices.
7. It is evident’ tl1at._ _before_tlie__ amendment of the above clause,
power should bepsuipplierl t”e.iA’th.e.’p_re’mises of an applicant from only
one souprc:§§e.i’ The aiiiendmenit states that power supply to the
buildinglprerniises.yéthrough separate distinct mains can be arranged
from” s’in_gle”souvrce~,vvith the provision of a common isolation point.
Thus, after the amendment, there is no bar for supply of electricity
througl1*d.i_stinct service mains.
from a single sourcefivvith the pitovision :7.’
9 W.P.18144/2010
8. Clause No.5 of the lease deed at Annexure ‘A’ states
petitioner is entitled for supply of electricity and that he has :toi[‘t’lae .
charges as per the meter reading raised by__the._cornpetent
Clause No.6 of the lease deed imposes a condition’ the”pe’tition:ie–r{i7]A
company to maintain the electrical,
fittings in the leased premises in good peer-nli’tion;~..1§lo material been
produced to show that the secionid. petitioner has
failed to maintain electrical On the other
hand, second re5:poriden’t”liasV prey.e’ntedi_ s’u_pp_ly of electricity to the
premises under the iocenpatiion’«of”th_e petitioner. After the amendment,
there is no irnpediiment t’orfthe*«–._first respondent to give a separate
connection tothe premises under the occupation of the petitioner. It is
in Vtrue trhatiif tlielexijisting meter bearing No.AEI-1.37452 of the premises
in bearing No. .1214 (front portion) .100 Feet
Road, HAL 2″ (Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, is not disconnected, the
u”‘Aip’etitiAoner may be saddled with fixed charges unnecessarily.
._’l”;hei=efiore, it is just and proper for the first respondent to disconnect
” the’ existing installation.
M,,..,u._._.,,,,
10 W.P.18144/2010
9. Supply of electricity is an essential amenity
enjoyment of the tenanted premises. The 2′” respondentphas illegaéllyii
“st
prevented the supply of electricity to the
respondent has informed the petirtioner in i’Annex1.1re…v°C”,
helplessness to restore power supplyiu””l=lowe_yer,Ctlaisui is not
helpless to direct restoration open for
this Court to pass suchorder and equity
projects. Article ofi’Vl’ndia’iibeing couched in
comprehensive wide powers on this
Court to reach is found. Power to do complete
justice inheres speak of a Court of plenary
jurisdiction like a High _(:oLm:. V’
.. 4, _ lv.Q_.”i~In;p_trlA1e light of tlieabove discussions, I pass the following:
ORDER
i(i)CThe_firstp_ respondent is directed to disconnect the existing
.. €}ec.tricity meter No.AEl~l 37452 of the petitioner’s premises subject
to Vipaymehl of fixed charges till the date of disconnection.
{
11 W.P.18144!201O
(ii) The first respondent is further directed to provide sep:irate
eiectricity connection to the premises in occupation of the..~petiptio_dneI’
subject to payment of the prescribed fee and making an it
accordance with iaw.
(iii) The first respondent is directed to giye”connectionVivwithdutid”
reference to the iandiord within a period’ four weeknditrom the date
of receipt of a copy of this order;
(iv) Writ Petitionestands Adiqpihosed of eccordingi;3″.” No costs.
dh/B MM/–