KRISHNAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Krishnappa, when he was alive, had filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution, inter alia seeking a writ to quash the notice of demand/letter in No. Aee (e) w3:sa:2554-56, dated 24-2-1994 issued by assistant executive engineer-second respondent herein. Alternatively, he was seeking a direction to the respondents to provide electricity supply to his premises, bearing No. 5, v Cross, magadi road, Bangalore, by collecting only the deposit for new connection without pressurising the petitioner for payment of arrears of the third party.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this petition, Sri Krishnappa expired without 'light' and now his wife Smt. Nagarathnamma has come on record with the permission of this court. She is prosecuting this petition filed by her late husband. Now she wants to improve the case, therefore, she has filed an interlocutory application requesting this court to permit her to amend the prayer in the petition to question the legality or otherwise of the Provisions of regulation 4. 34 of Karnataka electricity board supply regulations, 1988, (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'regulations' ). This court by its order dated 22-8-1997 has allowed the request made in the application. Pursuant to the order so made, petitioner has filed amended writ petition incorporating the prayer to strike down regulation 4. 34 of the regulation as ultra vires of the act

(3.) BRIEF facts are: petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of the property bearing No. 50, v Cross, Magadi Road, Bangalore, and it appears, her husband had let out the said premises to M/s. Canara plastics represented by Mr. Alen d'souza on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,300/ -. Since there was continuous default in paying rentals by the tenant and since petitioner wanted the premises for bona fide use and occupation of her family members, had filed an eviction petition and also obtained an order of eviction against the tenant. It appears, when the premises was in occupation of the tenant, he had obtained 20 hp electricity connection to the premises for his manufacturing activities from the respondent-board. For this purpose, board had installed an electric meter bearing rr No. W. 3p. 113 1/p2-109. It appears, on a surprise inspection by the inspecting wing of the board, it was noticed the tampering of electric meter by the consumer of electrical energy and this commission of serious offence resulted in disconnection of supply of electrical energy by the board to the consumer. It is stated in the petition, that for this offence committed by the consumer, the board had not only initiated criminal proceedings but also issued a demand notice, inter alia claiming backbilling charges in a sum of Rs. 1,45,800/ -. The events come to an end there. Since the consumer did not deposit the backbilling charges, the board had not restored the supply of electricity to the consumer. The consumer vacated the premises which was in his occupation without paying the backbilling charges.