IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE w.P.2~:o.s9sarg_eo6
1 r
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BAe:;;fieALc§§§%E%%%A é *
DATED T1123 mm 1 1% DA¥»~OF4AP'§§Ii§ '
ea=ons
THE HON'BLE MR.*J§3SafrlCf§'-N€K§PAT¥L«1._;'«*v
wnrr PETITION rzo.89s5F'-A -
.. mpsrmonea
(By 511 . M HMOT~!Gi , 'A:;wocA1'E) "-
AND :
1 STATE 0;'-' KARMAIAKA-« 4
PRJNCI._PAL_SEG_RETARY 'F0 GOVERNMENT
_DEPAR':'MENT.Q§ !NF0RMATi€)N
; "rounssm AND voum saavacss
» M_3'gggg_ggNQ' « ..... ..
8'A'NGA"§...QRE 01
2 '- _GL!LBARGA'ELECTR!C1TY suppur so no
Ac;:o:;<P,oRArE*'oFFacE STATEON ROAD
«A GULBARGA 535102
avrrs C;-HiEF ENGtNEER ELECTRECWY (cm
Q 3 Exacunve ENGINEER (ELECL)
A (mun M D!V!SiON caesccwa LIMITED
' = KOPPAL ozsrazcr
,4 ASSISTANT EXECUTWE Emsauaea
E Q» AND M sue DMSION aascom
amen
GANGAVATH: TALUK
RNCHUR DlSTRtCT
RE$PONDENTS
(By SMT. AS-HA M. KUMBARAGERIMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRLNK. GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4)
fix: fiiéfi f:(')1'fzi"¥* 6;? i<A"§m?&'"r}\mZ AT nA7~i<:*.AmRE \V4PNn,89Rt§¢'?0f)fi
IN THE HIGH CZQURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P'N.8986f20{}6
2
ms WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AN--fi._2é?" "'
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNCIATKQN
OT' 1.3.2006 IN NOEOISNKRTISSO DT.1.3.2E PR{}f}§.iC2EE3~.V \?§DE«_
ANNEXURE C i$SUED {N PURSUANCE OF CIRCULAR' E}T;6.1*20'€$5. 'VlDE._f_
ANNEXURE D ISSUE{) 3'! THE R4. AND TO DECLARE THIKT THE5C2iF€CULg3R H '
OT. 6.12% VIBE ANNEXURED ISSUED BY THER2 ES NQT 'APPLECABLE. if
TO THE PETITKJNER UNfT AS THE CONCESSl0NfGRA_NTED REMAl»N$ IN,
FORCE TM. 4.1'!.2Q05.
mes war? PETETIQN comma or: t=o2=§'Ré't--:LiM1:~aAra~:_ §-:'eA:#eINé.',u§:V Va'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MAKE THE FC§i;L{3*»'\(|_NG:
Petitioner quashing
the eemmunicI4tfiee§:"d_eie§é vide Annexure
C issued Veureuame of the
circular siide Annexure D, issued
by secom... petitioner has sought
that, circular dated 6"'
W Annexure 0 issued -by second
Vrespondent -eat applicable to petitioner unit as the
eeeeeeeien granted remains in force til! 4″‘ November
N THE Hififi €ffiH’R’T C’)? ‘fE’fi.’RN7t’f’A’¥~f’A” ‘AT flkflfifitflfifi W:’f’;No28986′;’2flt’}¢’§
IN ma axon comm? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE w.1=.No.393:sr2oo6
3
2. I have heard learned counsel appearing _
petitioner and learned counsei _ appearing
respondents.
3. The grievance of petitiorier in i
pefition is that, petitioner “_:~Hetel and
constructed a boarding by name
Lakshmi R.G.Road,
Karatagi, District. It is the
wse gfvv~vp’e’t'”:tiofr;er. _’._toi;iriet home and tourist
facilities-*.:vv”ere<i– petitioner by employing it
staff and ieareoognized Department of Tourism.
– w sjiin pupreuenioeto the guidelines issued by State
vf£;ir:i–1’impiementation of tourism poiicy with
_ effect. dune 1987, the concessional power tariff
extended to petitionefie Hotel business.
the rapondente 2 to 4 – Company has
ieeued an Official Memerandurn dated 12″‘ March 2003
granting oonoessional el trio power tariff to petitioner
N 3353 1119114 €’.C)I~IRT €333′ 3€–AR%\i1′:’¥’-A¥~’rr% ~A’~i’ R»AN€”1’*A*¥~.F)RF. W:*P’.Nn’.R9R6f2¥K}6
I
instatiatian bearing RR No.KRHT4 and
concessional etectric power tariff under for K
a period of three years from theft
installation Le. 5″‘ Novembet’2QD2’to_:§§’ Novtévmttigr .
Accordingly, petitioner said concession. Thereaftc-tir_;.'i" sent a
communicationttq’ that-H stating that
the withdrawn with
effect ifiaficordingly, issued the
demarzd = fie petitioner to pay the
difrerengégf (3) and HT 2(A) tariff from
2(§O’4′ ta.-…t’5′ February 2006. Being aggrieved
‘vfcommunication, petitioner herein felt
present ‘due instant writ petition, seeking
appfowiate reliefs, as stated supra.
V’ * 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents at
outset submitted that, the subject matter involved in
the insmnt case is direcfiy covered by the order dated 6*”
/4%,.
4%? T-HF. HIGH CFIHRT HF -K~A”RN74t”¥'”M€*A ‘A’? ‘Ft”AN€?AT.f”)R.’F§ W’3PNn’.R9£6!’2{)€}6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE W.?.Ne.8986:’2006
5
March mos passed in W.P.No.2802l2006 (Mls.
MAYURA WA’/SIDE FACiLiTY vs.
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER) a:_’_1d.. the eaid% has ”
aiso been confirmed by the Divisifzn Bench%eithis
in Writ Appeal No.1994l2006’ee;te§ 123′
Hate! Asleeha Enterprises .’Ve;e~..5tEate of
Karnataka and others), Bench has
taken the same Em niearned Single
Judge. n.eefere,he the writ petition
flied daspeed of following the
aforesaivii_ofd:er C)oud_
6,” made by learned counsel
v zreepiondehts, as stated supra, is pieced on
” §.fie’f..–cerefuI perusal of the prayer seught for by
*~C.fj;j«4___pe$ti0nér..__Aénd the order passed by the learned Single
‘ V’ :J:;{§$g.e.’..«A”dated 6″‘ March 2006 passed in writ Petition
‘jj”4:VNef?802/2W6, I am ef the View that, the subject matter
/41
LN THE HIGH C?C}I~§R’I’ OF KA-RNATA3{-A AT R~AN€~’rAI~.€)R¥f W-.4P.Ne’R9£6!£B06
__._that, open for-‘the
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAIEA AT BANGALORE W.P.N’o.8986!2{)06
involved In this petition is directly covered by ~.
passed by this Court, as rightty pointed out
counsel for respondents.
8. In the light of the facts of
case, the instant writ petitior:i’V§filed.” by’ is
disposed of following the order_..3ated_»_6″‘ ‘Ma-rob in
Writ Petition Nazsozizooe .~met MAYURA
WAYSIDE i=Ac:mv vs.i smog f§);~..K;:;§;:§J1ATAKA AND
ANOTHER) ancijror the?VVree§eone”‘etatertftnerein_ holding
that, the impirflggnetitl:;order._A_:oa_nnot:[_be’ said to be either
arbitrary or Therefore,
prayer for.vb;r:vA3;§e’titiorier.cannot be considered and
is liable be the petition flied by
petitioner ie’ciisn1iseed*.’~–,_it-ietvever, it is needless to clarify
eetitioner to redress its grievance
we)’ of representation seeking concession from
that’ $tete.V[:–ifvv”‘itV edvisw or need arises. Ordered
it . ._ acoorriinglyf ‘ ”
Sd/-
Iudgé
IN THE HEGH CCEURT CLIP KARNATAJCA A?’ E