IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C.M. Poonacha, J.
Arpee Electrical Pvt Ltd - Petitioner
Versus
Chief General Manager (Elec) Operations Bescom – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3412 of 2020 (GM-KEB)
Decided On : 04-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks writ for interest payment (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. history of petitioner's deposit and refunds (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's objection to petitioner's claims (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's consideration of submissions (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal background of previous orders (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. dismissal of review petitions (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. court's refusal to initiate contempt proceedings (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. writ petition rejected (Para 21) |
ORDER :
C.M. Poonacha, J.
The Petitioner is represented by its Managing Director who has appeared in person and is aged more than 80 years.
2. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to pay accrued interest of Rs.19,15,97,891/- as on 31.01.2018 and to pay 2% p.m., compound interest from 01.02.2018 till the entire amount is paid which is strictly based on facts and in accordance to law which are not in dispute.
c) To pass any other order or directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the interest of justice."
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that, it is a Small Scale Industrial Unit in plot bearing No.A-56, Peenya, Bengaluru, started in the year 1978-79. That he made an application to the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) presently Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') on 28.5.1987 for 200 KVA of electricity to establish a new industrial unit. Pursuant to which, as demanded by the Respondent, he paid deposit of a total sum of Rs.1,78,292/-. Thereafter, on 25.5.1991, he addressed a letter to the competent authority to permit installation of 2 diesel generator sets of 100KVA each to start production since no power connection has been given by the Respondent. That in the year 1992-93, he addressed various letters to the Respondent to refund the amount deposited with interest.
4. Despite the same, since the Respondent had not refunded the amount deposited, on 30.1.2003 he had filed a petition before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commissioner (KERC) in OP.No.32/2003. On 8.1.2004, the KERC passed an order for refund of the deposit after deducting 10% of the deposited amount and pay interest at 6% pa., as against the compound interest claimed by the Petitioner at 2% pm. On 31.1.2004, the Petitioner filed a Review Petition No.4/2004 before the KERC seeking for compounded interest at 2% pm. On 9.3.2004, the Respondent filed WP.No.10168/2004 before this Court challenging the order dated 8.1.2004 passed by the KERC. Pursuant to the interim order dated 29.3.2004, passed by this Court in WP.No.10168/2004, the Respondent deposited a sum of Rs.1,78,292/- on 21.4.2004 before this Court. The Review Petition No.4/2004 was disposed off by the KERC in view of the interim order dated 29.3.2004 passed by this Court. On 16.11.2006, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition directing the Respondent to avail the alternate remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity Act'), pursuant to which, the Respondent filed Appeal No.47/2007 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The Petitioner entered appearance in the said proceedings. On 16.5.2007, the APTEL passed an order by consent of the Respondent as well as the Petitioner, whereunder the Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.1,78,292/- deposited by the Respondent before the High Court and disposed off the said appeal.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 16.5.2007, the Petitioner vide letter dated 29.5.2007 sought permission of the Respondent to withdraw the deposit of Rs.1,78,292/- with interest in this Court, under protest. The said letter was replied by the Respondent, vide letter dated 20.6.2007 and accordingly, the Petitioner received the sum of Rs.1,78,292/- deposited before th
EMD is independent of the PPA and must be refunded following governmental withdrawal of approval; its retention constitutes unjust enrichment under Article 300A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a subsequent occupant is not liable for the electricity dues of the previous occupier and is entitled to a refund, as per the Supply Code of 2....
Companies or juristic entities cannot be punished for contempt; specific individuals must be named for compliance responsibilities.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.