High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Khimaji Manji Patel vs The Karnataka Power Transmission … on 29 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Khimaji Manji Patel vs The Karnataka Power Transmission … on 29 May, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
unslitiuc

av-..m. VII an-nu';-ur'\I\.I-I l"lIV7l"1,$...-«iv...-:I|.Jl'Kl ur l\.}\l£i'lIr\U-\l\l\ rman LUUK! U!' ISAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH

IN Hm HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED mxs THE 29"' my 01: MAY 2ms.   Q   
BEFORE 9 1' 4 'V V'

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I"ICE D.V..SHYLENDR2'§   " "V R

WRIT PETTIZEON No.?z1oe=f2eo?3 " I

1 SRIKHIMAJIMANJIPATEILQ 
S/OMANJIPA'I'VEi.~..  -A 
AGE 62 YEARS  A(3':RIIg~ A *  M
RJAT NO 34211 KUDACHi~CR§)S_S  .  " .

    
BELGAIIM  V  _ %  ' ...PETl'I'IONER

(By Sxi: PRA§1"A1$f:§.JA{--_V'R:, A§1}7Sf.}'-7  

1 '  POWER TRANSMISSION
c0RPoR.A'.r1GN LIB.
. _ REPBY A..sST.E.:_cEC'IJT1VE ENGINEER (ELE)
'  0 & M SUB-DIVISION (CSD-I/IIIRURAL)
    ..... .. V

- -Ca;~:'s.tj3ME9.s SERVICE CENTRE
HL'}§_LE'EI.ECTRIC SUPPLY co LTD
. B'i3LGAUM

 AA 3 " EXECUTlVEENGlNEER(ELE)

O 8:: M DIVISION I-IESCOM

NEHRU NAGAR
BELGAUM-I0  RESPONDENTS

‘T (By Sri.N.K.GUPTA, ADV. )

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTIIUTION OF INDIA PRAYNG TO QUASH THE
DEMAND NOTICE DT. 22.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE R2 AND

La/’

TIIUN LUUK! ll!” RHKNRIMAR naun MUUKI Ill” RHKNRIRRM TIIIJI1 DUURI VII” RH
gr KEVHIHRR HIWH H-‘JUN! 1}!” I\.F\KlV!’\l.H.l\Ji ¥”Ill»Jl”‘! ‘».s\.Il»M{l ‘SJ?’ fififlwfliflflfl l”H’Jl”l ‘

NOTICE DT. 20.64.2900 ISSUED BY THE R1 TRUE COPIES OF
WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANX-A & B RESPECITVELY; O.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR

HEARING BEFORE THE COURT THIS DAY,

THE FOLLOWING:

This writ petition is hype eorisrrtner of

been provided electricity corifieetiop irespptidents for

irrigation purpose.

2, It and being of
the erase’-iggmis-utilising the power by
it i.e., using the power for
as water was being sold on

cognrnerciel the subscriber demanding charges

eornrrxensurate to power provided to subscribers for

~. ei)1r:1ii’ereia_l’.ip;5erations. A demand was raised in terms of

new dated 20.4.2000 (Annexure-B) calling upon the

V. to remit the charge of Rs. 1,04,-433/–.

3. The demand notice also provided option to the
subscriber to file objections, if any, within a period of ten days.

Though it had been characterised as an appeal it appears there

I

Sri:G1.1.Ipt-3; leamed oounsc! for the Corporation is

11,
permitted file his vakaiath within two weeks tod9»X-.. 7
RS]!

:33. 5.<_¢Zx5. and 3.333 33.5 ¢¢<_£.5.¢£ .2… 3.333 3.3:» l¢_.a:.Ez_:!£ L3 .n33J E3…» ¢._£.x:(75._£¢ 53 3.3\…u,….. .r.n.:r. ¢.£Iu4_::¢£¢ .3} 3.3.3) C.9:..