$\mathbf{1}$

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2006

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL

WRIT PETITION No.47550 OF 2003 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

B M NAGENDRA PROP: MYLAR LODGE F M CIRCLE KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DIST.,

... PETITIONER

(By Sri: T A KARUMBAIAH & P C VINITHA, ADVOCATES)

AND:

• $\mathbf{1}$ THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION BANGALORE BY THE CHAIRMAN.
• $\overline{2}$ THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) O AND M SUB DIVISION. KPTCL, KUSHALNAGAR. KODAGU DIST,

.. RESPONDENTS

(By Sri: N K GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANN.C THE ORDER DT.30-9-2003 PASSED BY THE EXEC. ENGR.(EL.) AND CHAIRMAN OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MESCOM, HASSAN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETR. AS PRAYED FOR.

This writ petition, coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-

R D E R $\mathbf{O}$

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30^th September 2003 passed by the Executive Engineer (Ele) and Chairman of Appellate Authority, MESCOM, Hassan in Proceedings No. @. 20.(3); . ఆ నివి / నిని/దిన /2410-14/, vide Annexure C, has presented the instant writ petition.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that, the petitioner is a consumer of 5 KWts. Of power supply from the respondent – MESCOM – Company. It is the case of petitioner that, the respondent - Company without any justification, has demanded vide their communication dated 30^th October 1999 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of $Rs.1.75,000/-$ towards the augmentation charges taking into consideration that, the petitioner is having a sanctioned load of 135 KWts of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.47550.2003

中国中国内区国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国内的国

$\mathsf{h}$ m

electricity supply to his complex. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the said communication cum demand notice issued to petitioner vide Annexure $B$ is unilateral in as much as the same is issued without notice and without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, assailing the correctness of the demand notice issued by the Executive Engineer (El.) O & M Division, Madikeri dated 30^th October 1999 only in so far as item No.2, i.e. Mylora Lodge, Kushalanagar is concerned, petitioner has filed the appeal on the file of the Executive Engineer (Ele.) and Chairman and Appellate Authority. MESCOM, Hassan. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the said appellate authority on 30^th September 2003. The said authority, without conducting enquiry and without affording proper reasonable opportunity to petitioner and without reference to the ground reality, has passed the impugned order. The said order is passed on the ground that, electricity supply has

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.47550.2003

$\overline{3}$

already been disconnected in respect of two items of the building and accordingly proceeded to pass the order. confirming the demand notice issued, directing the petitioner to deposit the augmentation charges of Rs.01,75,000/-. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate relief, as stated supra.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.

化四苯甲酸

计算机 化二氯甲酸酯

ことに、「白麗教堂」

计密度器程序 计分析员 计算机模型

$\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_1$

After careful perusal of the relevant material $\mathbf{4} =$ available on file including the impugned order dated $30^{m}$ September 2003 passed by the appellate authority, it emerges that, the appellate authority has discussed the subject matter for consideration but has arrived at the present conclusion without assigning any cogent reasons. whatsoever and without giving any finding as to on which ground they are charging augmentation charges at

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.47550.2003

าววา

$\overline{5}$

Rs.1.75.000/-. Before charging the said augmentation charges, petitioner should have been afforded $\mathbf{a}$ reasonable opportunity of hearing. The respondent -Company being the statutory authority, is duty bound to consider the case in accordance with the existing code after recording the specific finding as to how the petitioner is liable to pay the augmentation charges. This aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the authority nor anything is coming forth from the impugned order with regard to this aspect. Therefore, the impugned order which is passed by the competent authority without assigning any reasons or recording any findings, is not sustainable. In short, it is not a speaking order. When ever an order is passed by the competent authority, the minimum basic ingredients of such an order is that, it should contain proper reasons and findings for arriving at such a conclusion, after critical evaluation of the relevant material available on file and after affording reasonable

$\mathbf{6}$

opportunity to the aggrieved party. After hearing the aggrieved party, the competent authority may proceed to pass the order. In spite of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in series of matters, holding as to how the order should be passed by the quasi-judicial authorities, the respondent Company has erred in passing the impugned order, without clear finding and reasonable opportunity to the party aggrieved. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The writ petition filed by petitioner is partly allowed;

$\overline{h}$ m

7

$(ii)$ The impugned order passed by the appellate authority dated 30^th September 2003 in Proceedings No. $(\mathfrak{A}, \mathfrak{A})$ . හා $\mathfrak{A}$ . න් $\mathfrak{I}$ $1 & 3$ / 2410-14, vide Annexure C, is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the competent authority of respondent -Company to reconsider the same afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance reasonable with law. after affording opportunity to the petitioner and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Further, petitioner herein is directed to (iii) deposit another Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) before the competent authority of respondent - Company within

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.47550.2003

$\mathfrak{g}$ $\mathfrak{g}$

three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

6. With these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioner stands disposed of.

$Sd/3$ <br>Judge

BMV