High Court Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Hameed Miyan on 26 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Hameed Miyan on 26 May, 2008
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
WP N0.208ll'2606

IN THE HIGH coum 01+' KARNATAKA AT BANGAL{§R:Ej  ,

DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY 01+' MAY  if -   '

BEFORE   

1-an Koran: rm. Jtumcm K. 

WRIT PETITION NO.2(}2V3VI~;f;2OO;3' 
nmwnm:  J  J' L

1. The Exccufivc Engineer  _    '4  
KPTCL now cmscom,   * <
BIDAR.    1 

2. The Asst.        
KPTCL now GEs(3c)1»1J,««%_    _   
Bidw.  

3. The Asst.  _'
Squad omocr, GEsco_M,j --._   * _

Bidar.

4. The Jufllhr Engm: ~  A
Haliikhcdfifij (Em), "

GES(3'{)M,~-. % 
Hu;mnabad_'i'3luk,--, 

   V.  Baa Gupta, Adv., for petitioner)

  

 ,s,I¢ Mxgsyea Bab Miraabwale,
.  575313:

wjoatnagaj ',

., N V  L» f *  Taiuk,

3 (By Sri Iqbal Patel, Adv., for respondent)

wrp uo.2as:z2oo§_

‘I’hi.sWxitPetimnisfiled}mderA:rticles 2261!
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order da

j: mic
2s..12.26o.5 e

(Azmexure-C) in complaint No.24]2005 on the

Consmmzr Disputes Rcdressal Forum, . «_ _

the following: __

The petitionezs are 226 & 227
of the Constitution of dated
28.12.2005 made the file of District

Consumer Dispxltee ‘the Forum’) at Bidar.

2. The brief tie the filing’ of the Petition’ ‘
may be statefi’ ash ” ‘V .

lime’ are the Ofiicers of the ossccm, have

v_.$hel}e;spondcnt had committed am of electnctty’ ‘ .

– criminal case against the xespondcnt for the

% 135 ofthe Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, ‘the
also issued demand note of back billing for a sum of
5l§Asa1_.:’.?:~9.243/– and compounding fee of Rs.60.000/-, in the event of

Feelingaggxioved bythe dmand note sentto

the respondent, he filed a complaint in No.24/3605 on the file of

This Petition’ ‘ conung’ on for heag ‘ I

WP N0-2M!f2006

District Oonsumm Rcdrcssal Fonun (in short ‘the Fonxgw} f %

The pctifimnexs filed the written statement mud

Forum had no jurisdmion to cntcrmm

by Judgment dated 28.12.2005. the.

the pctiéoncr to give ¢hCt1’iC’ity and V

also restrmhed the pcaaoucm fszgm cm the
ground ofnon-payment of back fat: until the
disposal of the °:V°mP13man’ t while
directing that: of R8.3,7 l2I- and
also pay the rcguhrly md imposed
coats of mental mason mused to
thc complainant; t = t *

pctitiofi that in View of Section 145 of

Civil Court nor any other authority hm

of any action taken by the pctztaoncrs” in
tizsi powcra conferred undcr that: Act. ‘Phcr&xc. the

WP N0.203!i2006

3. {gained Counsel for the yetitioners submits

jurlsdicuon afthe Clvilcourtaswcflas the other

under Section 145 of the Act, 2063. theificmngs a

crust in eeuemm mg’ the complaint and ‘k
cited a. decision reported :11 ms eras e

Enemsm. KPTCL now GBSCQM AIKXJETHEES vs;
AND ANGPHER] on the point ” 145 of the Act,
2003, of the cede: ex adjuclicating
the claim’ or action

4. Per Earned’ ‘ii the mepond4 ant submits’ that
in V3;-.w’ of the deeesee AIR 1990 so 332 (MUNICIPAL
oo12:éoRA’r:a%)§i ems’ msnuive ms. MAMA more 1&5 STEEEL
point that in the event of allemtitms as to

of the same is denied by the consumer,

eiifsply of electnc1′ ‘ty to eonsunrer w1thou’ t not:|cc°

‘ restoration of electncxty’ ‘ supply could be issued.

the petitioners have issued back billing to the

demanding a sum ofRs.1.29.24-31- on the gmund of theft

ofebcticity and compounding & of Rs.60,000[- in the event of

L