H P MUDLAPPA Vs. CHIF ENGINEER ELECL BESCOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner questioning the correctness of the order dated 30th June, 2003, bearing No. SEE/bc/appeals/pm-6/nc/324-N31g-15637/381 vide Annexure-L and consequently the draft bill note to the consumer dated 30-10-2002 issued by Respondents 5 and 6 (Vigilence), bescom, Bangalore in No. SP/vg/ao/915/2002-03 vide Annexure-H and also the demand notice dated 31-10-2002 issued by the 7th respondent in no. AEEE/n3/aao/rev/saii/cr-18. 3060-63 vide Annexure-J for payment of Rs. 1,42,590/- to the respondents. Further, he has sought for a direction directing Respondents 2 to 7 to refund the payment of Rs. 1,42,590/- and also back billing charges of Rs. 64, 538/- which was paid by the petitioner under protest subject to the result of the Appeals and Writ Petitions along with 18% interest thereon from 31. 10. 2002 till the payment of the said amount by allowing this Writ Petition with exemplary costs.

(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the back billing demand notice filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in Case No. N/324/2002 in respect of installation bearing RR No. NELg-15637 which was serviced with a sanctioned load of 18. 8. kw + 1 HF in the name of the consumer, on the ground that without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity merely on the basis of the Vigilance report the respondent-AEE/n-3 Sub-division has issued the back billing demand notice. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file an appeal before the first Appellate authority. The first Appellate Authority in turn after conducting the enquiry and after affording opportunity to the petitioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the back billing charges claimed by the respondent AEE/n-3, Sub-Division vide Demand Notice dated 31-10-2002 was upheld. Further it was held that the petitioner is liable to pay the same, by order dated 30th June, 2003. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and seeking appropriate relief as stated supra, the petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ Petition seeking the appropriate relief.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.