Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Sujatha, J.
Moksha V - Appellant
Vs.
Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 39159 of 2018
Decided On : 03-07-2019
M. Subramanya Bhat, Adv., H.V. Devaraju, Adv.
The court established the principle that in genuine cases, stringent provisions on limitation should not prevent the competent Appellate Authority from addressing grievances against impugned orders on their merits.
Headnote:
Appeal - Electricity Act - Section 127, Conditions of Supply - 44.01, 44.02
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered consumer of the Electricity Company, filed an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Appellate Authority (respondent No.3) against back billing charges. The appeal was rejected due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Clause 44.02 of the Conditions of Supply.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in making the pre-deposit for the appeal should be condoned, considering the petitioner's satisfactory reasons for the delay and the need to prevent flooding of superior constitutional courts with such cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appeal filed without the pre-deposit should be considered within the 30-day period provided by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and whether the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the appeal along with the pre-deposit amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay of 94 days in making the pre-deposit should be condoned, citing the need to prevent unnecessary flooding of superior constitutional courts and the petitioner's compliance with the pre-deposit requirement after the date of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the appeal, restored the proceedings to the file of the Appellate Authority, and directed the authority to hear the appeal on its merits without raising objections to the limitation in filing the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
S. Sujatha, J.
The petitioner has assailed the endorsement dated 04.06.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 to accept the appeal dated 26.02.2018 filed by the petitioner and to consider the same in accordance with law by condoning the delay, to meet the ends of justice.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the registered consumer of the respondent Electricity Company. The installation bearing RR No.S8HT-340 was serviced on 02.06.2010 under HT-2(A) tariff for industrial purpose.
3. The respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 22.03.2016 holding that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.7,06,825/- as back billing charges against which, the petitioner had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and filed the complaint on 06.02.2017. The CGRF, by its order dated 29.01.2018, held that the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority as per Clause 44 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity as per Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) [procedure for filing appeal before the Appellate Authority] Regulations, 2004 providing liberty to approach appropriate jurisdiction within 30 days from the date of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short) before the Appellate Authority-the respondent No.3. It appears, by an order dated 17.03.2019, the corporate office of the BESCOM condoned the delay in preferring the appeal. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 addressed a letter to the petitioner to make the pre-deposit of Rs.3,53,413/- along with the processing charges of Rs.7,068/- for accepting the appeal. The representations were made by the petitioner requesting to extend the time for pre-depositing the amount. However, an order has been passed by the respondent No.3 rejecting the request of the petitioner to extend time to make pre-deposit on the ground that there is no provision under the Rules for extension of time. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire back billing charges of Rs.7,06,825/- was deposited on 04.06.2018 before the respondent No.2.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.3 dated 04.06.2018, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Sri. Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.55070/2016 (D.D.23.11.2016), would submit that there being no provision for extension of time for pre-depositing, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court. Hence, the delay caused in making pre-deposit in terms of Clause 44.02 of the Conditions of Supply requires to be condoned and the file has to be restored to the Appellate Authority for consideration.
6. The learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the appeal under Section 127 of the Act shall be entertained only on complying with Condition 44.02 of Conditions of Supply. Unless an amount equal to half of the assessed amount is deposited and the documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with the appeal, no appeal shall be entertained. Hence, no exception can be found in the order impugned.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. The relevant Clauses 44.01 and 44.02 are quoted here under for ready reference:-
"44.00 APPEALS
44.01 Any person aggrieved by a final order made under the Condition 42.07 may, within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as specified by the State Commission in KERC (Procedure for Filing Appeal before the Appellate Authority) Regulations, 2005(Annex-3) under intimation to the office of issue.
44.02 No appeal against an order of assessment under made as per Clause 42.07 of these Conditions shall be entertained unless an amount equal to half
