No.CEA(«)G¯É¤/ªÉÄÊ£ÀPÁªÀå/»¸À2/¹ªÉÊJ¸ï-86

dated

30-06-2014

Annexure – K, writ of certiorari or any other like writ or writs, by

quashing the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent in final

assessment order No.SO/SA/RR-891 dated 15-01-2013 vide

Annexure J, writ or any other direction, directing the respondents

herein

not

to

disconnect

the

electric

supply

through

R.R.No.B.Y.T.23691, Category Lt-4(a), etc.

This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing, through Physical

Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made

the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the consumer of the electricity

for

her

alleged

agricultural

purposes

under

RR

No.BYT.23691 under LT-4 category. She had even installed

a Water Motor Pump-set of 7.5 Hp.

2. The second respondent herein who is the

Vigilance Officer of Mangalore Electricity Supply Company

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the MESCOM”)

3

conducted an inspection of the said installation of Power

Supply given to the petitioner herein, on 19-12-2012.

According to the said Vigilance Officer, he noticed that, the

LT-4 Power Supply sanctioned for agricultural activities of

growing crops was being misused by the petitioner for

cultivation of prawn. As such, the third respondent raised a

demand notice as per Annexure J, claiming a sum of

`1,32,657/- as back-billing for a period of sixteen months.

The said demand notice was challenged by the petitioner

before the first respondent, which is the appellate authority.

The said first respondent, after hearing both side and

recording the statements given by both side, by its

impugned order dated 18-03-2013 (Annexure K) confirmed

the demand notice raised by the respondent No.3 and

directed the petitioner to pay the back-billing claim within a

month thereafter. Challenging the same, petitioner herein

is before this Court in this writ petition.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that, the prawn culture is being run by the

4

lessee entirely based upon the power generated by him by

the generator, as such, the question of she siphoning the

purpose of electricity from LT-4 to LT-5 does not arise.

Learned counsel further submitted that, the petitioner

hardly makes use of the electricity, since nearly six months

of a year would be a rainy season in that area. Therefore,

the back-billing is totally incorrect. While concluding his

argument, he submitted that though the respondent No.3

has power only to claim back-billing for a maximum period

of twelve months, it raised the back-billing for a period of

sixteen months immediately prior to the date of

inspection, thus they have violated the rule.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the panchanama drawn on the

spot and the report of the Vigilance Officer of the

respondent No.2 has clearly proved that the electricity

under the category LT-4 was being used for prawn culture

which falls under category LT-5. Undisputedly, the prawn

culture activity was going on in the land belonging to the

5

petitioner to which the electricity supply provided by the

MESCOM was being used as such, the back-billing was

made. He further submitted that, clause 42.02 of the

Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution of

Licensees in the State of Karnataka, which speaks about

misuse of electricity, authorises back-billing for the entire

period of the un-authorised use of electricity, as such, in

the instant case, the entire period of un-authorised use of

electricity since has been calculated at sixteen months

based upon the licence issued by the Grama Panchayat for

the construction of the building for prawn culture, the back-

billing was made for sixteen months.

5. The contention of the petitioner that the electricity

was not being used for prawn culture, as such, the supply of

electricity was not misused from LT-4 to LT-5, is not

acceptable for the reason that, the Vigilance Report

submitted based upon the inspection conducted