Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 1186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Represented by its Commissioner - Petitioner
Vs.
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 47730 of 2016 (GM-KEB)
Decided On : 05-09-2017
For the Petitioner:Sri B.S. Gautham, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sri Vikram U., Advocate, Sri S. Sriranga, Advocate, Sri M. Nikhilesh Rao, Advocate, Sri Prashant T. Pandit, Advocate, Sri Sridhar Prabhu, Advocate.
Headnote:
Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 43 - Municipal Bodies - Proof of Occupation - Held, Court is satisfied that conditions of Supply Regulations as they exist as of now do not require proof of Occupation in form of Occupancy Certificate to be issued by respective Municipal bodies including BBMP for regulating electricity supply in State - KERC is sole Authority and it has rightly held in impugned order that proof of ownership and occupation of premises in question can be proved by any consumer or applicant seeking power connection in manner stipulated in Conditions of Supply (CoS), read with Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 - In absence of any amendment of relevant byelaws or CoS, State Government could not have insisted upon, as has been done in impugned Circular Annexure-A to ask Distribution Companies to insist for production of Occupancy Certificate by Consumer / applicant in a multistoried building, whereas, Occupancy Certificate has to be obtained by Developer / Builder from BBMP - Individual flat owners, who may be consumers or applicants, may not have any access or right to obtain such Occupancy Certificate at all from Municipal bodies like BBMP and therefore, insistence upon them to produce Occupancy Certificate as a condition for obtaining power connection would be per se illegal - State Legislature is of-course at liberty to amend relevant Rules and Regulations, but so long as they stand now, KERC cannot be faulted in passing impugned order on complaint filed by Consumer Association - Petition dismissed.
The petitioner – BBMP has filed this petition aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘KERC’) on 9.4.2015, Annexure-K, whereby on the Complaint No.1/2015 filed by the Consumer Association namely, Vidyuth Grahakara Hitarakshana Vedike and Karnataka State Licenced Electrical Contractors Association, it inter alia held in para (n) of its order that the respondent - Distribution Companies like BESCOM, CESCOM etc., could not insist upon the consumers to prove their occupation of the premises by the “Occupancy Certificate” to be issued by the Municipal Bodies like BBMP.
2. The relevant para of the said order dated 09.04.2015 passed by KERC, is re-produced hereunder :
“(n) Electricity is an essential commodity for all the persons. Section 43 of the Act, envisages an universal obligation on the part of the Distribution Licensee to provide electricity on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises. Under the Act, the Commission has been delegated with the powers to frame suitable Regulations for supply of electricity to the consumers, on such terms and conditions. The CoS is duly framed and approved by this Commission, specifying the terms and conditions for supply of electricity to the consumers. The CoS has the full force and effect of a statute. This Commission alone has the right to amend or modify any of the provisions of the CoS. All persons, who are entitled to get supply of electricity under the terms of the CoS, cannot be denied the supply of electricity for any extraneous reasons. Therefore, even a person, whose occupation of a building is not as per the provisions of the Municipality Act and Bye-Laws, is entitled for supply of electricity to his premises, if he satisfies the provisions of the CoS. In this way, the object of universal obligation to supply electricity to all persons is met with. Hence, the supply of electricity to an occupant of a building, whose occupation may not be authorized under the Municipality Act and Byelaws, serves a greater cause and does not amount to abetting any illegality. For the above reasons, issue No.(2) is answered in the affirmative.”
3. The petitioner – BBMP was not even a party before the said KERC in the aforesaid Complaint No.1/2015. Still it has chosen to assail the said order of the KERC before this Court and the petitioner - BBMP has filed this petition with the following prayers:
“Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to :
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order dated 9.4.2015 in Complaint No.1/2015 on the file of Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bengaluru produced at Annexure-K. And in the alternative, remand the matter to the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bengaluru after quashing the impugned order and directing to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner in the matter.
(ii) Grant such other order or direction as deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Gautham explained that in view of the Circular issued by the State Government vide Annexure-A dated 18.07.2014 mandates to prove all occupation in the form of “Occupancy Certificate” and that is why cause to file the present petition arose to BBMP. The relevant portion of the said Circular dated 18.07.2014 issued by the State and is also quoted below for ready reference :
“Government of Karnataka
No. UDD 556 MDP 2013
Ministry of Government of
Karnataka
Vikasasoudha,
Bangalore, Date: 18.07.2014
CIRCULAR
Sub : Precautionary action to be taken in accordance with acts and rules regarding regularization of illegal construction.
Ref : Proceedings of the Meeting held on 27.05.2014 in the room of Chief Secretary to Government regarding reexamination of acts and rules pertaining to regularization of illegal constructions.
In accordance to the subject referred above and also the proceedings of
