Writ Petition No. 12 of 2025 · The High Court · 2024
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18084 WP No. 12 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: ICT SERVICES MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.30/A 2ND PHASE, PEENYA PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU 560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV.,) AND: Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) A GOVERNMENT COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) (AEE) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) C. O. AND M. N-5 SUB DIVISION - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18084 WP No. 12 of 2025 BESCOM, S.R.S. GATE, S.R.S. ROAD PEENYA 1ST STAGE, PEENYA BENGALURU-560 058.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. STEPHANIA PINTO, ADV., FOR SRI. SHAHBAAZ HUSSAIN, ADV., FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED BILL BEARING NO MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE I HEREUNDER TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT DEMANDED UNDER THE HEAD OF 'DEMAND CHARGES' ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AEE AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO A21 (COLLECTIVELY AND CONSEQUENTLY INCURRED AMOUNTING TO INR TWO CRORE TWENTY SIX LAKH FIFTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE ONLY (INR 2,26,59,725/-) FOR THE PERIOD FROM THE FEBRUARY 2023 TO DECEMBER 2024 AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE-I HEREUNDER. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24TH SEPTEMBER 2024 AND REDUCE THE CONTRACT DEMAND FROM THE EXISTING 4000 KVA TO 300 KVA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B & ETC. RESPONDENT REIMBURSE CONSIDER LOSS THE AEE 2ND TO THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18084 WP No. 12 of 2025 "a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction for quashing the Impugned bill bearing no., more fully described in Schedule - I hereunder to the extent of amount demanded under the head of 'demand charges', issued by the 2nd Respondent AEE as produced at Annexure-A to A21 (Collectively) and consequently reimburse the loss incurred amounting to INR Two Crore Twenty Six Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Only (INR 2,26,59,725/-) for the period from the February 2023 to December 2024 and more fully described in Schedule - I hereunder; b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction to the 2nd Respondent AEE to consider the Representation dated 24th September 2024 and reduce the Contract demand from the existing 4000 kVA to 300 kVA Produced at Annexure-B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other c. appropriate writ, Order or direction to the 2nd Respondent AEE to Supply power through a pre - payment meter in accordance with Section 47(5) of the Electricity act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and consequently, refund the entire Initial Security Deposit held by the 2nd Respondent AEE amounting to INR Sixty-Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only (INR 66,60,000/-). d. Grant liberty to the Petitioner to approach appropriate forum to seek compensation for the delay caused by service deficiencies in accordance with Regulatory Commission (Licensees' Standards of Performance) Regulations 2004. Karnataka Electricity the e.
Decision
Grant cost of the Writ Petition." 2. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on the business of original equipment manufacturing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18084 WP No. 12 of 2025 of computer hardware and other products. The petitioner had established its manufacturing facilities in Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru, wherein the contracted load initially was 500 kVA and subsequently, was enhanced by 3500 kVA up to 4000 kVA. 3. In pursuance thereof the petitioner was making payment of the demanded amount from time to time. However, thereafter, the petitioner shifted its manufacturing facility from Peenya to Narasapura and hence, requested for reduction in the contracted load from 4,000 kVA to 300 kVA since the manufacturing activity was not being carried out. The said request came to be rejected by the respondents, vide Annexure-A to A21 on the ground that since another writ petition relating to the same was pending in W.P.No.20389/ 2021, the same could not be considered. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18084 WP No. 12 of 2025 4. Sri.Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even when the request for enhancement was made from 500 kVA to 4000 kVA, with enhancement of 3500 kVA, W.P.No.20389/2021 was pending and the enhancement was made in the year 2024. Thus, the submission is that when the pendency of the said proceedings did not come in the way of enhancement, the pendency of the proceedings cannot come in the way of reducing the contract load. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to support the said orders on the ground that due to the pendency of the matter in WP.No.20389/2021, there being a loss which would be caused to the respondents, no reduction could be caused without permission from this Court and as such, the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-B was rejected by the respondents. It was for the petitioner - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18084 WP No. 12 of 2025 to approach this Court and obtain such leave. The petitioner not having done so cannot find fault with the respondents. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the papers. 7. Though the learned counsel for respondents seeks to support the rejection of the representation of the petitioner, I do not find any substance therewith. Inasmuch as, firstly, the petitioner, when it sought for enhancement, was carrying out manufacturing activities in Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Subsequently, the manufacturing facility has been shifted to Narasapura, where similar power connection has been obtained by the petitioner and the petitioner is making payment of the due contracted load at Narasapura. The petitioner not carrying out manufacturing activity at the unit in Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru cannot be forced - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18084 WP No. 12 of 2025 to make payment of contracted amounts both at Peenya and Narasapura which would result in unjust enrichment on part of the respondents. 8. Be that as it may, even otherwise, if at all an entrepreneur or a manufacturer were to reduce the manufacturing and seek for reduction in the contract load, whether it shifted to any other premises or not, the manufacturer cannot be forced to continue with the contracted load merely because such a contracted load has been sanctioned. It is for the manufacturer to decide what load the manufacturer wants to avail of and seek for such reduction as the manufacturer intends to. If at all there is any excess usage, there are always provisions available under law to take necessary action. The manufacturer cannot be prevented from reducing the contracted load so as to work out the modalities and finances of the manufacturer when the manufacturer does not want to carry out such manufacture in that unit. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18084 WP No. 12 of 2025 9. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) A certiorari is issued, the demand charges at Annexure-A to A21 issued by the respondents are quashed. iii) A mandamus is issued, respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 24.09.2024 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-B for reduction of the contract demand favourably taking into consideration the relevant aspects within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say, if the petitioner has not used the contracted load no demand could be made on the petitioner for any amounts. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0