INFOSYS LIMITED Vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called into question the Orders, dated 4.7.2009 (Annexure-J) and 27.4.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner owns 60 apartments in the multistoried building complex known as Adarsh Gardens situated in Jayanagar, Bangalore. The tariff for the said installations is being charged as per Tariff Schedule LT-2(a). Based on the inspection conducted by the vigilance squad, the respondent No. 2 vide his Order, dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure-F), held that the applicable tariff is LT-3 meant for the private guest-houses and demanded the payment of back billing charges. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The General Manager, by his Order, dated 26.9.2006 (Annexure-G) confirmed the levying of the commercial tariff to the petitioner's installations in question. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the original authority and the Appellate Authority by filing W.P. No. 8416/2007. This Court by its Order, dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure-H) quashed both the orders and remitted the matter. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent passed the Order, dated 4.7.2009 (Annexure-J) holding that the petitioner's installations attracts the commercial tariff and directing the petitioner to pay the back billing charges. He also made it clear that if the petitioner defaults in making the payments, the installations would be disconnected. He directed the petitioner to furnish the individual agreement for all the 60 installations by paying the admissible fee for tariff conversion. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. Nos. 21633/2009 and 21909-969/2009. This Court, by its Order, dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure-K) rejected the said petitions reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No. 3, who by its Order, dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure-A) dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Sri Dhyan Channappa, the Learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Crest Law Partners for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased 60 apartments in 1994 for housing its employees for temporary period. There is no commercial activity whatsoever in the apartments. The petitioner's employees can stay there for a limited period. The purpose for which the apartments are being used is strictly residential.