IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 1:?" DAY OF DECEMBER.2b1_oVV'_* ;; I J _ BEFORE THE HON 'BLE MRJUSTICE S;.ooA3_?mj§5:, "NAzEER' A f» 7 WRIT PETITION N0.£51494/20l0..((}rM-KEll§}.:. A w:'§ Between: Sri M. Mohan Raj, Aged about 56 years, . V S/o MunirathnarajL1,=-- -- if No.337, 8"" A Mati11'R_.ol_a*d, i Rajajinagar, A " 'gj ~ V Bangalore -- 550 C_r.55, ' (By Sri Q And: l A T V 1 The Chai"r:nan',~ ~ '-Bangalore Ele€triei_t}* Supply é ' Coihpafiyo Ltd. (BESCOM), V' " .. emery .Bha_van, K.G'.fRuoada;-Bangalore -- 9. Z 2 Executive Engineer (Eie)., O. Sub--Division, BESCOM, to Neiamangala, 'Bangalore Dist. Sri N.K. Gupta, Adv.) Petitioner. .... Respondents.
This W.rit Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 3
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned _no_tice’ ‘ .
22.9.2010 issued by the second respondent, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Pre–1iminary Heari_ng_inVVi’Bi’
Group this day, the Court passed the followingie A.
0RDIi_I’€*—
Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned Counse’l»v,.i._s’directeditotalge notice
for respondents.
2. In this case, the_peti_ti–on’er i1as’iic’a1ledi._’~in question the
provisional asses3sme}?rt’i’0rder dated 22.9.2010
issued by the 25″‘respo1idei’i«t upon him to pay a sum of
€144,112/Qstewards» bacpk.–ib’il.liiin/5 charges in respect sir the
_ installaptiioinebearirig l\lo.l:’~IP2579. The petitioner has filed his
2’7,’objectioizsfi 1/.as.::’per Annexure ‘H’ dated 27.9.2010 to the
provisional’ «i”a.ss*s.sment order. Sri. N. Kempegwoda, learned
. Counsel ap’-pearihg for the petitioner submits that in the provisional
iassessmentiorder at Annexure ‘A’, the petitioner was informed that
…ifelectriciity supply to the installation in question will be
is
._
disconnected without any further notice, if he fails to paylv._t;he_V
amount mentioned therein.
3. Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing, theiv”
respondents submits that the-assessing olffice:r..hajs to “thew. : 7 .i
objections and pass appropriate orders thereon”afteraffozfcling Vi
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. provided ,_llunderlSection
126(3) of the Karnataka Electr_ic–ity .–}’lct,V–_ _
4. Perusal of the proV.isi~on}al asse’ssme’nt&o’rder at Annexure
‘A’ indicatesiilthat” upon to pay ?3,44,1 12/\
towards back billing “—fllh’e”case of the petitioner is that he
is not liable to “any’bac’k billing charges. The matter requires
.conSid’eratiloii1. The petitioner is permitted to file additional
ob_iectionsv».an.<j'" prfoduce additional documents, if any, within a
p6n'od"0I° v.'.ee=ks from today. The assessing officer is directed to
–. i.”g”..cloi1sider tire objections/additional objections, if any, and pass
aappropriate orders thereon after affording the petitioner an
opportunity of being heard. Needless to say that till the disposal of
it
r
BMM/- t ..
the matter as above, the electricity supply shall not be ”
to the installation in question and the continuation”_of”electricity Z
supply is made subject to the order, be
assessing officer. The writ petiton isdisposed ofV.accordi«n.gly.
5. Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned Co1tnlse.1 i’s,perrrijtted._to…file his
vakalath for the respondents “with–i.nla_’fieriodlofneight weeks from
today. No costs.
sar-