ORANGE FINE DINE AND FAST FOOD REP. BY ITS PARTNER MAJEED K. MOHAMED Vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED AND MRS. PARVATHI BAI@

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the 1st respondent -Managing Director, BESCOM and the 2nd respondent -Assistant Executive Engineer of BESCOM, E -8 Sub -Division, Banaswadi, Bangalore to reinstall the electricity meter and to reconnect the electricity supply by collecting the back -billing charges in respect of meter No. 8EEH283. It is the case of the petitioner that the property bearing No. 854/1 and 2, Ring Road, Prithvi Theatre Compound, Nagavara, Bangalore -560 045 is absolutely owned by the 3rd respondent. It consists of ground floor with ACC Sheet roofing with a bore well and car parking facility. Petitioner claims to be a tenant in the said premises since 31.01.2011 on a monthly rent of Rs. 32,000/ -. It is the further case of the petitioner that it has taken the schedule premises on lease to run a restaurant. According to the petitioner, it has obtained due permission to run the business from the BBMP. It is urged by the petitioner that it had to close down the restaurant for some renovation and maintenance work during August, 201.3. However, in the month of September, 2013 the electricity meter board of the restaurant had been removed. This made the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and also address a representation to respondents 1 and 2 to reinstall the electricity meter. Respondent No. 2 refused to consider the request though a representation was made as per Annexure -F on 19.09.2013. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation and reinstall the meter by reconnecting the electricity supply to the premises.

(2.) THE 3rd respondent, owner of the premises, though served, has remained absent.

(3.) AS respondent No. 3 has not appeared before the Court and as she has surrendered the meter by paying the back -billing charges, the only appropriate order that is required to be passed in this case is to direct respondent No. 2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law after notifying and hearing respondent No. 3. If the lease is subsisting and the petitioner is willing to pay the back -billing charges, there is no reason why respondents 1 and 2 shall deny the reconnection of electricity supply to the premises in question. At any rate, it is for respondent No. 2 to consider the matter as expeditiously as possible. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure -F in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after issuing notice to respondent No. 3 -owner and after hearing both the petitioner and respondent No. 3.