2017 Merged

D-888
BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

9/2, 6th Floor, Mahalakshmi Chambers, M.G Road, Bangalore – 560 001
Present: B.N.Krishnaiah
Electricity Ombudsman
Case No.OMB/B/G-273/2016
Dated : 25.05.2017_
Sri Honnaiah,
S/o late Chikkaiah,
No.86, 7th Cross,
Sunkada katte,
Bengaluru – 560 091. … Appellant
(Party in person)
And :
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El),

O & M sub-division, BESCOM
N-4 sub-division, Peenya,
Bengaluru – 560 058
2. The Chairperson, CGRF,

Bangalore Urban District,
BESCOM, West circle,
05, 3rd stage,
Bhimajyothi HBCS Layout,
Next to Chord Road Hospital,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bangalore-560079. … Respondents
(R-1 by Sri Ramesh, AAO, BESCOM)
*****
2017 -- Page 1 of 112

OMB/B/G-273/2016. C.Honnaiah – vs – AEE & another Page 2
___________________________________________
1. This is an appeal under clause 21.02 of KERC (CGRF & Ombudsman)

Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by CGRF, BESCOM, Bangalore
Urban District, Bangalore dated 30.06.2016.
2. Letter dated 20.10.2016 was issued to the Assistant Executive

Engineer, Bengaluru calling for comments. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
N-4 sub-division has submitted reply vide letter dated 23.03.2017.
3. Both the parties were informed vide letter dated 14.02.2017 regarding
availability of sub-regulation 20(1) of KERC (CGRF & Ombudsman) Regulations,
2004 for settlement by conciliation and mediation.
4. The appellant in his appeal has stated that –

The N-4 sub-division office has issued the notice. This was challenged before
the CGRF contending that (i) back billing cannot be raised for 8 months. The
complaint was dismissed by the CGRF. Thereafter the appellant is not aware
of the developments. The AEE has issued the notice on 17.09.2016 for which
the appellant replied on 27.09.2016. Says that there is no reply to his letter
dated 17.09.2006. Again the appellant has represented to the SE on
28.09.2016 for which also there is no reply.
5. The AEE has submitted his reply for the appeal on 23.3.2017 as follows:
(a) The installation bearing PN 21655 with sanctioned load of 3 KW was

serviced on 17.1.2006.
(b) The meter was faulty from 19.1.2013 and was replaced by another
meter on 24.07.2013 and the details are given below :
2017 -- Page 2 of 112

___________________________________________
Particulars of meter Particulars of the Particulars of the

Meter removed replaced meter
Sl. No. of the meter 237670 41503
Manufacturer Aquaris Aquaris
Capacity 5/20 A 2.5/10 A
Initial reading 00 01787

Final reading 3271 --
.
(c) The internal auditor has conducted a search (vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ) and has reported
that during the period for which the meter was faulty (19.01.2013 to
23.09.2013, there was shortage of demand at Rs.4,272.
6. The AEE has produced copy of the notice dated 28.10.2015 issued to
the appellant wherein it is stated that taking 76 units as the average
consumption per month, he has arrived at the total of 667 units for the period
from 19.1.2013 to 23.9.2013. Applying the tariff prevailing at the relevant
points of time, has demanded Rs.4,272, failing which action would be taken to
recover the amount.
7. On this notice, the Appellant approached the CGRF in complaint
8. The CGRF in its order dated 30.06.2016 has ordered as follows :

1. ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀzÀ zÉÆÃµÀ ¥ÀÆjvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ©®è£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåvï ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt
DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «vÀgÀuÉ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 27.04 gÀ°è

w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥ÀjµÀÌj¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ±À¯ÁVzÉ.
2017 -- Page 3 of 112

___________________________________________
2. ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ¤ÃqÀ®Ä

DzÉÃ¹¯ÁVzÉ.
Accordingly, the AEE says that in compliance of the orders of the CGRF dated
23.07.2016 that as per the order of CGRF the assessment was redone as
required under Regulation 27.04 of Conditions of Supply and the back billing
reduced from Rs.4,272-00 to Rs.3631-00.
9. The oral and written submissions made by both the parties perused
and considered. The report of the AEE vide letter dated 23.03.2017 reveals
the fact that a verification is made and the assessment is revised for the period
under question as ordered by CGRF. The back billing is reduced to
Rs.3,631-00. The report submitted by R-1 shows that he has replied well in
time on the issues raised by the Appellant. It is also seen and noticed that the
appellant has been informed about the action taken as ordered by CGRF. No
vital reasons are found in the appeal to interfere with the order of the CGRF.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.N. Krishnaiah)
To :
1 Sri C.Honnaiah, S/o late Chikkaiah, No.86, 7th Cross, Sunkada katte,
Bengaluru – 560 091.
2. The Chairperson, CGRF, Bangalore Urban District, BESCOM, West
circle, 05, 3rd stage, Bhimajyothi HBCS Layout, Next to Chord Road Hospital,
Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore-560079.
3. Managing Directors of ESCOMs.

4. PS to Hon. Chairman, KERC
5. PS to Hon. Member (A), KERC
6. PS to Hon. Member (M), KERC
7. PS to Secretary, KERC
8. AEE, N-4, Peenya.
2017 -- Page 4 of 112

___________________________________________
****
2017 -- Page 5 of 112

D-819

Case No.OMB/B/G-267/2016
Dated : 12.01.2017
Sri L.N.Gangaraju,
S/o L.R.Nagarajappa,
No.E-33/1, 1st Main Road, 1st Cross,
Laggere, 2nd Phase,
Bengaluru – 560 058 … Appellant
(Party in person)
V/S

O & M, N-4 sub-division, BESCOM,
Peenya,
Bengaluru – 560 058
(By Sri Rudresh AAO)
2. The Chairman & Superintending Engineer,

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Office of the Superintending Engineer,
BESCOM, West Circle, 05, 3rd Stage,
Bhimajyothi HBCS Layout,
Next to chord Hospital, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560079 … Respondents
*****
2017 -- Page 6 of 112

OMB/B/G-267/2016. L.N.Gangaraju – vs – AEE, BESCOM & another 2
________________________________________________________

Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by CGRF, BESCOM, Bengaluru,
dated 30.06.2016.
2. Comments were called vide letter dated 02.08.2016 from the

respondents and the AEE has submitted reply by letter dated 03.09.2016.
3. Both the appellants and the respondents were informed vide letter
dated 06.10.2016 regarding availability of sub-section 20(1) of KERC (CGRF &
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004.
4. The appellant Sri L.N.Gangaraju in his appeal has stated that the
installation in RR No.PNP 4926 relates to the commercial premises and was
vacant from 10.02.2012 to 26.09.2015. On 12.12.2013, BESCOM authorities
without information have changed the meter since it was not functioning.
Thereafter based on the report of the Internal Audit Department a notice was
issued on 10.04.2015 raising a demand of Rs.1,42,375-00 though there is no
supply of electricity till 09.04.2015. Further states that during verification of
the ledger it was noticed that a sum Rs.1,69,105-00 has been paid in respect
of RR No.PNP 4926.
5. The appellant has further stated that on 28.09.2015 AAO of BESCOM

visited the premises and disconnected the electricity of the entire building for
which he says paid charges of Rs.60,000-00 and Rs.1,50,000-00. The
authorities have not furnished the ledger extract showing the demand and
collection details.
6. The 1st respondent in his reply dated 03.9.2016has submitted that the
installation was connected with 30 HP power supply on 15.07.2006 under LT-
5 (Industrial). Though there has been power consumption the installation is
2017 -- Page 7 of 112

OMB/B/G-267/2016. L.N.Gangaraju – vs – AEE, BESCOM & another 3
________________________________________________________
charged only fixed charges. Based on the average consumption the short
claim was calculated from January 2013 to December 2014 and after
deducting Rs.30,693-00 which was already paid, raised a demand for
Rs.1,42,375-00. The AAO who appeared on 28.12.2016 on behalf of the 1st
respondent has defended the action by the authorities and submitted the
details. However, the AAO further submitted that the Authority i.e. AEE
would visit the premises again, show the reading in the meter to the appellant
and calculate the charges as per norms for which the Appellant also has
agreed.
7. Considered the submissions made and accordingly the matter is

remanded to AEE to inspect the premises in the presence of the Appellant,
examine and pass suitable orders as per the norms at the earliest.
Sd/-
(B.N. Krishnaiah)
To :
1. Sri L.N.Gangaraju, S/o L.R.Nagarajappa, No.E33/1, 1 st Main Road, 1st

Cross, Laggere, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru – 560 058
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El), O & M, N-4 sub-division,

BESCOM, Peenya, Bengaluru – 560 058
3. The Chairman & Superintending Engineer, Consumer Grievance Redressal

Forum, Office of the Superintending Engineer, BESCOM, West Circle, 05, 3rd
Stage, Bhimajyothi HBCS Layout, Next to chord Hospital, asaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560079
****
2017 -- Page 8 of 112

D-820

Case No.OMB/C/G-272/2016
Dated : 12.01.2017
Sri Sharada Educational Trust (R),

271, T.P.Kailasam Road,
R.T.Nagar, Dattagalli 3rd Stage,
Ramakrishna Nagar post,
Mysuru – 570 022 … Appellant
(By Sri B.V.Venkata Ramu, Authorised Representative)
V/S
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer(El),

O&M, Sub-Division,
Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation,
Hootagalli sub-division, Belavadi Post,
Mysuru
(Party in person)
2. The Chairperson
CGRF & Superintending Engineer,
Chamundeshwari Eelctricity Supply Corporation
Jodi Basaveshwara Road,
Kuvempu Nagar, Mysuru … Respondents
*****
2017 -- Page 9 of 112

OMB/C-G-272/2016. Sri Sharada Educational Trust (R) – vs – AEE & another 2
__________________________________________________________________

Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by CGRF, CESC, Mysuru (herein
after referred to as the 2nd Respondent) dated 24.09.2016.

respondent AEE and he has submitted the reply vide letter dated 03.11.2016.
3. Both the appellants and the 1st respondent were informed vide letter
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004, which both the parties have not availed.
Hence, this Authority proceeds to pass orders on merits of the case.
4. During the hearing of the case on 16.12.2016, the AEE was asked to
furnish copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.17225 of 2007 in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., - vs –
M/s.Ghousia College of Engineering. The AEE has furnished copy of the same
to the appellant by his letter dated 23.12.2016, copy of which is also marked
to this Authority.
5. The appellant in his representation to the Authority has stated that the
appellant Trust was sanctioned power supply of 5 KW on 23.01.2007 and
subsequently sanctioned additional 5 KW of power in 2011 and also requested
for additional power supply in 2016. During this period the disturbance came
to be noticed and the CESC has raised the bill for Rs.88,303-00 being the
difference amount.
6. The AEE in his reply has submitted that the appellant was sanctioned
power on 23.01.2008 under category LT-2(b), but in the computer, by mistake,
it is entered as LT-2(a). This was noticed in 2016 and hence, the bill for
2017 -- Page 10 of 112

__________________________________________________________________
Rs.88,303-00 has been raised. This bill is only a short claim and the bill is raised
exercising powers under Clause 29.08 of Conditions of Supply of Distribution
Licensees in the State of Karnataka.
7. During the arguments, authorised representative for the appellant

submitted that whatever bills are raised by the CESC, are paid promptly and
for the mistake committed by the Authorities the appellant cannot be called
upon to pay the difference amount.
8. The respondent AEE submitted that proceedings are initiated under

clause 29.08 of Conditions of Supply of Distribution Licensees in the State of
Karnataka and further argued that the action taken is in conformity with the
order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.17225/2007 in which the
Hon’ble High Court had upheld the proceedings of BESCOM in a similar case
filed against BESCOM by Ghousia College of Engineering, Ramanagar.
9. However, after arguments, the appellant requested for permission to

pay the dues in instalments.
10. Considered the oral and written arguments of both the parties. The
Appellant has agreed to pay the dues in instalments. The matter is remanded
back to the AEE to examine the request of the appellant for payment in
instalments and pass suitable orders as per law.
Sd/-
(B.N. Krishnaiah)
2017 -- Page 11 of 112

__________________________________________________________________
To :
1. Sri B.V.Venkataramu, J.V.Electricals, No.905/3, 4th Main, 1st Cross,

V.R.Puram, Mysuru – 570 008.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer(El), O&M, Sub-Division,

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation, Hootagalli sub-division,
Belavadi Post, Mysuru
3. The Chairperson CGRF & Superintending Engineer, Chamundeshwari

Eelctricity Supply Corporation, Jodi Basaveshwara Road, Kuvempu Nagar,
Mysuru
****
2017 -- Page 12 of 112

D-821

Case No.OMB/C/G-274/2016
Dated : 12.01.2017
V.Kamala,
Propx. M/s. Kamala Industries,
C-147, Industrial Estate,
Yadavagiri,
Mysuru – 570 020 … Appellant
(By Sri B.B.Deepak, Authorised Representative)
V/S

O&M, Sub-Division,
Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation,
V.V.Mohalla, Mysuru
(Party in person)
2. The Chairperson
Chamundeshwari Eelctricity Supply Corporation
Jodi Basaveshwara Road,
Kuvempu Nagar,
Mysuru … Respondents
*****
2017 -- Page 13 of 112

2
OMB/C/G-274/2016. V.Kamala, Propx.M/s. Kamala Industries – vs – AEE, CESC & another
______________________________________________________________________
1. This is an appeal filed against the orders passed by Appellate Authority

dated 31.08.2016.
2. Comments were called vide letter dated 03.11.2016.
3. Both the appellants and the 1st respondent were informed vide letter
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004, which both the parties have not availed.
Hence, this Authority proceeds to pass orders on merits of the case.
4. A perusal of the papers indicate during the joint inspection of the

premises headed by AEE, along with the staff of M.T.Reading Division and
vigilance staff it is said that they have noticed that the installation of the
petitioner was connected with 35 HP + 360 watts and supply of power
unauthorisedly by the petitioner to the neighbouring sheds. The petitioner
was also asked to take action to regularise the unauthorised supply of
electricity under Clause 42.05 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity by
Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka.
5. Based on the report of L.T. rating division and the vigilance the AEE
raised a bill for Rs.1,37,083-00 on 18.12.2008. To this notice the appellant has
filed the objection on 16.12.2009 and stated that the appellant has not
committed any theft of electricity or unauthorised use of electricity. The AEE
confirmed the demand of Rs.1,37,083-00. Aggrieved by this he has
approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the writ petition, and the
Hon’ble High Court has remanded the matter to the AEE. Accordingly, the AEE
has passed a revised order revising the demand from Rs.1,37,083-00 to
Rs.98,478-00 by his order dated 30.06.2010. This was again challenged by
the appellant before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.23118/2010. The Hon’ble
High Court has considered the case and disposed of the same directing the
2017 -- Page 14 of 112

3
OMB/C/G-274/2016. V.Kamala, Propx.M/s. Kamala Industries – vs – AEE, CESC & another
______________________________________________________________________
appellant to approach the Appellate Authority by depositing 50% of the

amount (50% of Rs.98,478-00). The appellant has deposited 50% of the
amount and approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by
its order dated 31.08.2016 has dismissed the appeal.
6. The submissions made by both the parties and other records are
perused. This is a case dealt under Section 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act,
2003. This Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed against
the orders passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellant may have to seek
relief from the appropriate competent authority. Accordingly the matter is
disposed off. The interim stay order granted by this Authority on 03.11.2016
stands withdrawn.
Sd/-
(B.N. Krishnaiah)
To :
1. Sri B.B.Deepak, Kamala Industries, C-147, Industrial Estate, Yadavagiri,

Mysuru – 570 020

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation, V.V.Mohalla, Mysuru
3. The Chairperson, CGRF & Superintending Engineer, Chamundeshwari

Eelctricity Supply Corporation Jodi Basaveshwara Road, Kuvempu Nagar,
Mysuru


****
2017 -- Page 15 of 112

Case No.OMB/G/G-280/2017
Dated : 29.06.2017
Tahera Khatoon,
D/o late Ahmed Husain,
H.No.3-11-11,
Near Hamdard High School,
Raichur – 584 101 … Appellant
(By Sri S.Mahaboob, Authorised Representative)
V/S

O & M, sub-division No.1,
GESCOM, Raichur
(AEE in person)

O & M Circle, GESCOM,
Raichur … Respondents
*****
Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by CGRF, GESCOM, Raichur,
dated 06.04.2017.
2017 -- Page 16 of 112

OMB/G/G-280/2017. Tahera Khatoon – vs – AEE, GESCOM & another 2
________________________________________________________

4. The case of the appellant is that she has applied for temporary
connection from GESCOM, Raichur, in the year 2014. In the year 2015, she
applied for permanent connection. The AEE issued a bill for Rs.70,553-00
and the appellant sought details for this demand. For this there was no
reply by the AEE. Hence, the appellant approached CGRF in a complaint.
During the pendency of the complaint before the CGRF, the appellant has
paid 50% of the bill. After payment of 50% of the demand amount, the AEE
issued Work Order. Took about on year for providing permanent power
supply to the installation. Hence, the appellant sought for compensation for
the delay at Rs.200-00 per day.
5. The AEE has furnished the reply vide letter dated 28.04.2017 and has
stated as follows:
(i) The consumer applied for temporary power supply to an extent of 1

KW for her building construction on 20.01.2014. The power was
sanctioned on 21.01.2014 with RR No.T-5726;
(ii) The consumer applied for permanent power sanction for 2 KW under
LT-2(a) category when the building was still under construction. On the
request of the consumer that the construction will be completed within a
week, an estimate was submitted on 04.02.2015 by the Section Officer, and
2017 -- Page 17 of 112

________________________________________________________
accordingly power sanction was communicated on 26.02.2015. After

payment of the deposits by the consumer the Work Order was assigned
dated 20.04.2015;
(iii) In the meantime, the AEE (Vigilance), GESCOM, Raichur, inspected

the installation on 18.02.2015 and preferred the back billing charges for a
sum of Rs.70,553-00 against the excess load of 4 KW;
(iv) Notice was served to the consumer by the AEE, O & M USD-1,
demanding back billing charges of Rs.70,553-00 dated 16.04.2015. The
back billing charges was also demanded in the monthly bill of May 2015;
(v) The charges shown in the back billing was not paid and hence the
installation could not be serviced though the Work Order assigned;
(vi) During the pendency of the complaint before the CGRF, the
consumer has paid 50% of the demanded amount and the installation was
serviced on 29.02.2016;
(vii) Letter dated 26.09.2015 addressed to Sri Sharath Kumar, Advocate

who appeared for the Appellant before CGRF, was sent furnishing
information sought under RTI Act.
6. During the course of the hearing the representative of the appellant

has submitted that the consumer has not received any provisional notice.
The information furnished to said Sri Sharath Kumar under RTI Act cannot
be construed as information furnished to the consumer. Further, submitted
that the AEE has not passed any final order confirming the provisional
demand. The AEE also is not disputing the fact the final order confirming
2017 -- Page 18 of 112

________________________________________________________
the provisional demand is issued. In fact there is no document furnished to

show that final order has been issued. While initiating proceedings by AEE,
it appears that proper procedures are not followed. Therefore, the matter
needs reconsideration. Hence the following Order.
O R DE R
The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the AEE for

considering the matter afresh. The AEE shall hear the consumer or her
representative and then pass a final Order as per law at the earliest.
Sd/-
(B.N.Krishnaiah)
To:
1. Sri S.Mahaboob,No.13-2-2/195, Arjunappa Colony, Yeramaras Camp,

Raichur – 584 135
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El), O & M, sub-division No.1,

GESCOM, Raichur

Forum, GESCOM, Office of the Superintending Engineer, O & M Circle,
Raichur

****
2017 -- Page 19 of 112

Case No.OMB/G/G-281/2017
Dated : 29.06.2017
Abdul Saleem,
H.No.5-9-74,
Netaji Nagar,
G.D.Thota,
Raichur – 584 104 … Appellant
(By Sri S.Mahaboob, Authorised Representative)
V/S

O & M, sub-division No.1,
GESCOM, Raichur
(AEE in person)

O & M Circle, GESCOM,
Raichur … Respondents
*****
Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by CGRF, GESCOM, Raichur,
dated 06.04.2017.
2017 -- Page 20 of 112

OMB/G/G-281/2017. Abdul Saleem – vs – AEE, GESCOM & another 2
________________________________________________________

4. The appellant Sri Abdul Saleem has filed the complaint before the
CGRF in Form No.`A’ requesting (1) to order for withdrawal of abnormal bill
of Rs.68,820/- issued for the month of October 2016 and (2) to issue the
correct bill. The complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the
CGRF on 06.04.2017. Hence, he has approached this Authority.
5. The AEE has furnished the parawise reply on 28.04.2017 and has
stated as follows:
(i) The installation bearing RR No.25706 was serviced on 11.08.1992

in the name of Sri Abbas Ali s/o Masoom Ali, to an extent of 240
watts under LT-2(a) category;
(ii) This installation was transferred in the name of Sri Abdul Saleem
(appellant) on22.12.2004;
(iii) Additional load to an extent of 4760 watts (existing 240 watts)

was sanctioned and serviced on 05.03.2005 to an extent of 5 KW
in total;
(iv) During the month of December 2014, the R & R of

electromechanical by static meter was done and the bill was
2017 -- Page 21 of 112

________________________________________________________
served for sum of Rs.15,893-0 and the payments done by the

consumer in instalments;
(v) During the month of October 2016 while effecting disconnection

it was observed by the Section Officer that the meter provided to
the installation was working but the meter reader was issuing the
bill as MNR since May-2016. Therefore, the Section Officer billed
the installation as per reading that is 184500.0 units for Rs.
Rs.62003-00 (Rs.68,820-00 including arrears);
(vi) Show cause notice was issued to the meter reader on 27.10.2016;
(vii) The meter was calibrated on 10.01.2017 and found that the
percentage error within the range of accuracy and working
normally.
6. The CGRF in its order has stated that “¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ ºÉÃ½PÉ
ºÁUÀÆ J¯ï.n. gÉÃnAUï «ÄÃlgï ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É «ÄÃlgï£À°è §¼ÀPÉAiÀiÁ zÀ
AiÀÄÆ¤mïUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ°è MmÁÖgÉ ©®Äè ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ
w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ”. With this the CGRF has stated in its order that the bill raised is
in order. The CGRF has not assigned proper reasons in passing the order.
During the hearing also the authorized representative maintained that the
arrears bill issued at Rs.62,003-00, that too, for a domestic installation is
very high. In fact there is no reply given to the letter of the consumer
seeking details. Inconsistency was pointed out by the authorised
representative in the statement (consumer history statement) produced
before this Authority. The entire case needs to be properly examined as
2017 -- Page 22 of 112

________________________________________________________
per rules. Hence, it would be appropriate for this Authority to remand the
case to the CGRF for fresh consideration. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The Order dated 06.04.2017 of the CGRF, Raichur,

is set aside. The matter is remanded to the CGRF for fresh consideration.
The CGRF shall give an opportunity of hearing to the consumer or his
representative and pass order as per law.
Sd/-
(B.N.Krishnaiah)
To:
1. Sri S.Mahaboob,No.13-2-2/195, Arjunappa Colony, Yeramaras Camp,

Raichur – 584 135
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El), O & M, sub-division No.1,

GESCOM, Raichur

Forum, GESCOM, Office of the Superintending Engineer, O & M Circle,
Raichur

****
2017 -- Page 23 of 112

D-869

Case No.OMB/H/G-239/2016
Dated : 21.04.2017
D.K.Chavan,
C/o Tushar M.Baddi,
Near SBI, Keshwapur,
Hubbali. … Appellant
(By Tushar M Baddi, Authorized Representative)
V/S

O&M, Sub-Division,
HESCOM, Kalghatgi,
Dharwad District

Dharwar District, HESCOM,
O&M Circle, Shivaganga Layout,
Kusugal Road, Hubballi … Respondents
(R-1 by Sri H.V.Devaraj, Advocate)

****
1. This is an appeal filed under clause 21.02 of KERC (CGRF &
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by CGRF, HESCOM,
Hubli (here in after referred to as the 2nd Respondent) dated 22.12.2015 . The
appellant has sought the following reliefs :
2017 -- Page 24 of 112

OMB/H/G-239/2016 D.K.Chavan – vs – AEE, HESCOM & another
(a) Direct the respondent to refund the 1/3rd deposit amount paid in respect
of Appeal;
(b) Award interest at 2% per month as per KERC Conditions of Supply

Regulation 29.08 with costs;
(c) Direct the respondent to strictly comply with the provision of Section 146
and 127(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and KERC Conditions of Supply
Regulation 44;
(d) Direct the head of HESCOM to take appropriate action against the
Respondent individual for his wilful disobedience of Licensing Regulations and
the Electricity Act in adjusting the 1/3rd deposit amount towards revenue
arrears.
2. The case of the appellant is as follows :
(i) The installation bearing SKMP-8 was standing in the name of

Shankar Industries and was sanctioned 35 HP power on 31.01.1996;
(ii) The appeal was filed on 27.09.2005 after depositing 1/3 rd amount
(Rs.14,095) vide receipt number 9261 dated 27.09.2005;
(iii) The appeal filed by the appellant to the Appellate Authority came
to be allowed by order dated 07.05.2011. The amount of Rs.14,095
deposited was ordered to be refunded;
2017 -- Page 25 of 112

(iv) On 02.06.2011 a request was made to the AEE for refund of the
amount and the order passed by the Appellate Authority was also
produced;
(v) Since the amount deposited was not refunded reminders were sent
on 01.08.2011, 27.12.2011 and 27.02.2012;
(vi) The AEE by letter dated 09.03.2012 has informed that during the
appeal before the Appellate Authority the 1/3rd amount (Rs.14,095)
has been adjusted against the dues;
3. The AEE by his letter dated 01.03.2016 has submitted as under :
(i) The installation was serviced on 31.01.1996 with a sanctioned load

of 35 HP;
(ii) The AEE and meter testing officer, Dharwad has submitted Report
No.742 dated 16.05.2005 stating that the meter is sticky and hence
back billing at Rs.42,284 raised on average basis for six months;
(iii) The appellant has filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority by
depositing 1/3rd amount. During the pendency of the appeal
against the arrears of Rs.16,800, the appellant has paid only
Rs.2,295. By oversight the amount of Rs.16,351 was considered as
arrears and the deposited amount was adjusted against the dues.
No interest was calculated on the disputed amount of Rs.42,284;
2017 -- Page 26 of 112

(iv) The Superintending Engineer, Hubli, has passed an order dated

07.05.2011 directing refund of the deposited amount. As the
deposited amount was adjusted against the arrears and no interest
was levied on the arrears, no amount was refunded to the
consumer. This fact has been informed to the consumer.
4. The authorised representative for the appellant has filed the written
arguments contending as follows :
(i) It is evident that the installation bearing RR No.SKMP-8 is serviced
on 31.01.1996 with a sanctioned load of 35 HP. The LTR wing on
16.05.2005 has rated the energy meter as sticky and thus a short
claim for a period of six months amount to Rs.42,284 was raised.
The same was challenged before Licensee Appellate Authority. The
Appellate Authority ordered to refund the amount. But the amount
of Rs.14,095 deposited on 27.09.2005 was not refunded.
(ii) The Licensee has addressed letter stating that the deposited
amount was adjusted against the revenue arrears which the law
does not permit them to do so. The Licensee has acted contrary to
Regulations and credited the appeal amount in the appellant’s
monthly revenue account without any order or directions from the
Appellate Authority;
(iii) Under Section 127(2) of Electricity Act “No appeal against an order
of the Assessment under sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless
an amount equal to one third of the assessment amount is deposited
in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary
evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with appeal”.
2017 -- Page 27 of 112

Hence the appellant has contended that if the 1/3 rd amount was
deposited by way of bank draft then it was not possible for the
licensee to adjust the disputed amount in the revenue arrears
wherein the complainant would also be entitled for benefit of
interest;
(iv) A conjoint reading of Section 127(6) and 154 (6) of the Electricity
Act, the complainant has to be paid an additional amount of 16%
pre annum;
(v) The Licensee has failed to comply with the Electricity Act, Orders or
Directions issued by their superior’s and hence breached the
Statutes and has committed a severe offence by intervening with
the procedures of the Appellate Authority. Hence the authorised
representative has contended that the offender should be punished
under Section 146 of the Electricity Act;
(vi) The CGRF, Hubli, has overlooked the issue and deliberately shielded
the mistake of its employees.
5. The learned Advocate for the respondent has contended that, though
the appellant has filed the appeal by depositing 1/3 rd amount (Rs.14,095),
subsequently, as there were arrears the Licensee has adjusted the entire
deposited amount against the arrears. No interest has been levied for the
arrears. The learned Advocate contended that the action cannot be faulted
as levying interest on the arrears and recovering the same with interest would
amount to refunding the deposit amount with interest. Hence he prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
2017 -- Page 28 of 112

6. The written and oral submission made by both the parties are
considered. The Respondent authority should have refunded the 1/3 rd
amount deposited immediately as ordered by the Appellate Authority. If any
arrears were there, the License should have initiated action to recover the
same. Aleast at the time of adjusting against arrears the consumer should
have been updated and informed. Here we see a lapse on the part of Licensee.
The HESCOM authorities should initiate action against the official concerned.
7. The sub missions made and order of the CGRF reveal that there were
arrears due from the Appellant. It is also seen that by adjusting the deposited
amount to the HESCOM no loss occurred to the Appellant and Respondent
authority. But the Authorities should keep in mind the procedures/rules while
initiating proceedings.
8. Considering all the above, it is seen that the proceedings and order of
the CGRF is in order. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.N. Krishnaiah)
To :
1. Sri Tushar M Baddi, Arihant Park, Keshwapur, Hubballi.
2. Sri H.V.Devaraj, Advocate, No.39, Shop No.24, Mezzanine Floor,

A.S.V.N.V.Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bangalore.

HESCOM, Kalghatgi, Dharwad District
2017 -- Page 29 of 112

4. The Chairperson, CGRF, & Superintending Engineer, Dharwar District,

HESCOM, O&M Circle, Shivaganga Layout, , Kusugal Road, Hubballi

****
2017 -- Page 30 of 112

D-847

9/2, 6th Floor, Mahalakshmi Chambers, M.G Road, Bengaluru – 560 001
C/w
Dated 3rd March 2017

Between :
Sri Sameer M.Haji,

C/o Tushar M.Baddi
Hubballi
Sri M.M.Govankoppa,
C/o Tushar M.Baddi
Hubballi … Appellants
(By Sri Tushar M.Baddi, Authorised Representative)
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El)

O & M sub-division, HESCOM
Navalgund,
Dharwad District.

2017 -- Page 31 of 112

2
OMB/H/G-265/2016. Sameer M.Haji – vs – AEE, HESCOM & another
OMB/H/G-266/2016. M.M.Govankoppa – vs – AEE, HESCOM & another
________________________________________________________
O&M Circle, Shivaganga Layout,

Kusugal Road, Hubballi
… Respondents
(R-1 by Sri H.V.Devaraj, Advocate).
****
1. The above said appeals are filed under clause 21.02 of KERC (CGRF &
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 against the orders dated 18.06.2016 in
respect of both the appeals passed by CGRF, Hubballi, (hereinafter referred to
as the 2nd Respondent). Since the facts are similar, both are clubbed, heard
together, and disposed off by this common order. Sri Tushar Baddi has
appeared as representative for appellants in both the appeals. Sri
H.V.Devaraj, Advocate appeared in both the cases for the respondent AEE,
Navalgund.

respondent AEE. He has submitted the reply on 18.07.2016 in respect of both
the cases.
3. The case of the appellants is as follows :
(a) RR No.NVLMP-33846 is in the name of the appellant Sri Sameer M.Haji

and it was sanctioned with a load of 22 KW and charged under LT-5
category on 17.01.2011 for manufacture of bakery products. RR
No.NVLMP-33847 is in the name of the appellant Sri M.MGovankoppa
and it was sanctioned with a load of 15 KW and charged under LT-5
category on 17.01.2011 for manufacture of bakery products;
(b) After a lapse of four years the AEE issued a notice separately to both
the appellants saying that in the meter fixed in the intallations the
2017 -- Page 32 of 112

3
________________________________________________________
meter constant is taken as 1 instead of 10 and for the gap of 4 years he

has raised a bill for Rs.5,01,522 and Rs.3,15,863 in respect of the
insallations respectively. Their contention is that price of the bakery
products is fixed taking into consideration the cost of raw materials,
electricity charges and labour charges. Raising a back bill of such large
amounts all of a sudden has put the appellants to financial hardship;
(c) Bills are required to be issued by the authority after examining the first
calibration report. If the meters are showing abnormal reading then it
is the duty of the meter reader to bring the same to the knowledge of
the AEE at the first instance. Instead they have kept quite and after a
lapse of 4 years they observe and assess;
(d) There is dereliction of duty on the part of the meter readers and also
the AEE;
(e) The installations RR No.NVLMP-33846 and NVLMP-33847 LT-5 tariff

are CTO operated and it is not known how many times the internal
auditor has examined the revenue register in these four years;
(f) The installations are CT operated and all the details of the metre is to
be noted in the register and the bill is to be issued after following all
the stipulated parameters;
(g) The appellants filed their objections on 17.08.2015 and 28.09.2015

respectively. Without considering the same the AEE has issued the
orders dated 08.09.2015 wherein, the procedure laid down in condition
29.03 of Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in
the State of Karnataka is not followed;
2017 -- Page 33 of 112

4
________________________________________________________
4. In response to the appeals, the AEE has submitted his reply on

18.07.2016 as under:
(a) The installation bearing NVLMP-33846 (Sammer M.Haji) sanctioned

power of 22 KW and was charged under LT-5(B) category. The
installation bearing NVLMP-33847 (M.M.Govankoppa) sanctioned
power of 15 KW and was charged under LT5(B0 category;
(b) By oversight the meter constant has been taken as 1 instead of 10;
(c) The premises of M.M.Govankoppa was visited by the vigilance on

30.04.2015, mahazar was drawn and as per the report dated
30.04.2015 the team noticed power consumption of 63387 units which
was left out. Hence arrived at the back bill at Rs.3,04,123-00 and raised
a provisional bill dated 03.08.2015;
(d) The premises of Sameer M.Haji was visited by the vigilance on

28.07.2015, mahazar was drawn and given to the consumer and as per
the report dated 28.07.2015, the team noticed that for the period from
February 2011 to July 2015 power consumption of 101896 units which
was left out and hence arrived at the back bill at Rs.5,13,046-00 and
raised a provisional bill dated 01.08.2015.
(e) After considering the provisional bill, and after confirming that the
meter constant was left out, the said appellants were asked to pay the
back billing amount arrived at Rs.5,01,522-00 (Sameer M.Haji) and
Rs.3,04,123-00 (M.M.Govankoppa) within 15 days respectfully;
2017 -- Page 34 of 112

5
________________________________________________________
(f) As the bill amount was not paid within 15 days, one more letter was
issued on 08.09.2015 and 01.10.2015 to both the appellants
respectively and advised to pay the amount;
(g) Since they failed to pay the charges, the installations were
disconnected on 22.09.2015;
(h) After negotiations by the appellant Sri Sameer.M.Haji, on 28.09.2015

an amount of Rs.40,000-00 was paid through demand draft and power
supply was restored. Further, the appellant Sri M.M.Govankopa also
paid Rs.26,322-00 on 05.10.2015 and power supply was restored;
(i) Both the consumers i.e. Sri Sameer M.Haji paid Rs.5,04,000-00
commencing from October 2015 to June 2016 and Sri M.M.Govankppa
also paid Rs. 3,04,123-00 starting from October 2015 to April 2016 in
instalments;
5. The appellants have contended that as per norms the back billing can
be raised only for a period of two years. In support of this, the representative
of the appellants has cited following Judgements and hence sought reliefs
made in the appeal memo.
(i). Hemeshbhai J Patel Vs. Deputy Engineer, Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd
passed by Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State;
(ii). Shivala Bagh Bhaian Trust Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board passed by
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab;
(iii). Shri Jaykumar P Lalwani Vs. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Gujarat Vij
Company Ltd., passed by Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State;
2017 -- Page 35 of 112

6
________________________________________________________
(iv). President, GIDC Industrial Association Vs. Deputy Engineer, Uttar Gujarat
Vij Company Ltd., passed by Electricity Ombudsman;
(v). Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vs. GIDC Industrial Association passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad.
(vi). Tagore Public School Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana;
(vii). Surinder Kumar Vs. Ombudsman Electricity, Punjab & others passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
He submitted and argued that in all the above said Judgements the Hon’ble
Courts have it clear that the authorities should stick to norm of 2 years as laid
down in Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. He also highlighted
that there is failure on the part of authority who are scheduled to inspect and
test the meter as required under clause 26.02 of the Conditions of Supply
6. However, the learned Advocate for the respondent has defended the
action taken by the respondent in raising the back billing charges. He has
stated that the vigilance squad noticed the wrong calculation made by
oversight in the instant case during their inspection on 30.04.2015 and
28.07.2015. By oversight the metre constant was taken as 1 instead of 10.
This has resulted in a big loss to the Licensee. Hence, he argued that the action
taken by AEE in raising the back billing charges is in order. Moreover he has
submitted that the appellant has understood the technical flaw which was
noticed by the vigilance squad and hence resorted to pay the instalments in
dues. Hence the action of the AEE is as per procedure laid down in under
Regulation 29.03 of Conditions of Supply which is fully complied with. In
addition to the above, he has pleaded that the action taken by the AEE is in
conformity with the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
2017 -- Page 36 of 112

7
________________________________________________________
W.P.17225 of 2005 in respect of BESCOM – v s- Ghousia College of

Engineering.
7. On perusal and consideration of both the oral and written submissions

made by both the parties it clearly establishes the fact that the proceedings
initiated and order passed by AEE appears to be in order.
8. It is seen that the AEE has raised the bill immediately on receipt of the
report of the vigilance squad and no delay is made. The technical flaw
erupted in reading of the meter had not come to notice of the AEE till 2015.
9. Immediately on receipt of the report from vigilance the AEE has issued
notice and acted as per procedure laid down under Regulation 29.03. After
negotiation the appellants have paid the dues in instalments. The consumer
has not disputed regarding the consumption of power during the period in
question. Thus, the action of the AEE in raising the bill appears to be in
conformity with the observations made and orders passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in W.P.17225/2007 pertaining to Ramanagar.
10. The relevant portion of the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in W.P.17225/2007 in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company – vs –
Ghousia College of Engineering of Ramanagar states as follows : (para 12).
“12. Clause 29.08 (a) reads as hereunder :
“At any time during verification of the consumer’s account, if any short
claims caused by erroneous billing are noticed, the Consumer is liable
to pay the difference. The Licensee shall follow the procedure laid
2017 -- Page 37 of 112

8
________________________________________________________
down under Clause 29.03 in such cases for preferring the

supplemental claims.
However, the Licensee shall not recover any arrears after a period of
2 years from the date when such sum became first due, unless such
sum has been shown continuously in the bill as recoverable as arrears
of the charges of electricity supplied.
In case f verification of the consumer’s account, shows excess claims
made in the past, the excess amount shall be credited to the
consumer’s account from the date of payment up to the date of credit.
This shall be done within one month from the pointing out the excess
claims. If for any reason there is delay in crediting the amount to the
consumer’s account, interest at 2% per month shall be paid to the
consumer for the period beyond two months.
Middle paragraph of Cl.29.08 (a) deals with the period of limitation of

2 years. According to Mr.Gupta two years period has to be reckoned
on which date short claim was noticed by the petitioner and even after
noticing such short claim if the petitioner had slept over the matter for
more than two years, in such circumstances, period of 2 years has to
be restricted only from the date of demand and so far as the present
case is concerned, immediately after noticing short claim based on the
audit report, demand is raised as per Annexure-a dated 23.06.2007.
Therefore, he contends that petitioner came to know of such short
claim and within 2 years from that date billing has been raised,
therefore order passed by R-2 has to be quashed. Per contra,
Mr.Reddy contends that the same paragraph has to be read holding
that two years period has to be reckoned only in respect of the short
claim for a period of 2 years from the date of issuance of demand and
2017 -- Page 38 of 112

9
________________________________________________________
not earlier to that. If the contention of R-1 is accepted in Cl. 29.03

itself, there would not have been restriction in regard to the demand
of a short claim. Cl. 29.08 has to be considered for the purpose of
calculation of period of 2 years only from the date of knowledge and
not from the date on which the first sum became due. It is not in
dispute that the short claim was made known to the petitioner only
when it received the audit report. The same date has to be considered
as the date on which such sum became first due. There was no
occasion for the petitioner to raise a bill prior to the receipt of the audit
report. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the period of two
years has to be counted from the day on which petitioner-company
has come to know of such short claim. This paragraph has to be
interpreted to restrict the period of two years if the petitioner-
company has slept over the matter even after two years after noticing
short claim or wrong classification. Therefore, point No.1 has to be
answered in favour of the petitioner.
In the result, this petitioner is allowed. Order passed by R-2 as per

Annexure-F is hereby quashed”.
This order of the Hon’ble High Court was challenged by Ghousia College of
Engineering before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. 5
of 2009 (GM-KEB) and the Division Bench by its order dated 09.09.2015 has
dismissed the appeal.
11. Further, the text of the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand cited by the learned Advocate comes to the aid of the action of
the AEE in the instant case. The Judgement was reported in AIR 2016
2017 -- Page 39 of 112

10
________________________________________________________
Jharkhand in Sheo Shakti Cement Industries – vs – Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam

Limited. The Judgement reads as follows :
“Error in raising correct bills occurred due to difference in Multiplying

Factor in the old CTPT Metering Unit which was removed and the new
CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on 27.01.2011. The
contention that the bill for the period between 29.01.2011 to
31.03.2014 were paid by the petitioner and thus, supplementary bill
dated 04.06.2014 is barred under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act,
2003 cannot be accepted. The fact that petitioner had consumed
electricity supplied by respondent Nigam is not disputed. The
Installation Report dated 27.01.2011 discloses the particulars of the
CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on2.01.2011 and those
particulars are corroborated by the Installation Report dated
31.01.2014 and therefore, the petitioner cannot avoid payment for
the electricity consumed by it. The supplementary bill dated
13.05.2014 as corrected by bill dated 04.06.2014 raised on account
of less Multiplying Factor is not barred under Section 56(2) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 (para 7)”
12. In the light of the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and after
considering both oral and written submissions made by both the parties it is
seen that there are no vital and proper reasons to interfere with the order of
the CGRF and the proceedings of the AEE. The proceedings of the AEE is in
order. Therefore the appeals are dismissed.
13. However, the personnel connected with inspection and audit of the
meter have failed to discharge their part of work as required under Regulation
2017 -- Page 40 of 112

11
________________________________________________________
26.02 of Conditions of Supply. The authorities concerned should initiate penal

action against them for dereliction of their duties at the earliest and report to
KERC.
Sd/-
(B.N.Krishnaiah)
To
1. Sri Tushar M.Baddi, Near SBI, Keshwapur, Hubballi
2. Sri H.V.Devaraju, Advocate, No.39, Shop No.24, Mazzanine Floor,

A.S.V.N.V.Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El), O & M sub-division, HESCOM

Navalgund, Dharwad District.
4. The Chairperson, CGRF, Dharwar District, HESCOM, Office of the

Superintending Engineer, O&M Circle, Shivaganga Layout, Kusugal Road,
Hubballi
.

*****
2017 -- Page 41 of 112

D-940

Dated : 15.09.2017
Mallikarjuna Trust,
R.S.No.106/B, Plot Nos.11 & 13,
Vidyagiri, Bagalkot … Appellant
(By Ranganatha M.padamukhe, Authorised Representative)
V/S

O & M, City sub-division,
Sector No.25, Navanagar,
Near SBI, Bagalkot
(Sri H.V.Devaraj, Advocate)
2. The Chairperson
O & M Circle, HESCOM,
Vidyagiri,
Bagalkot – 587 102 … Respondents
*****

Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by CGRF, HESCOM, Bagalkot
dated 20.01.2017.
2017 -- Page 42 of 112

OMB/H/G-277/2017 – Mallikarjuna Trust – vs – AEE, HESCOM & anr. 2
2. The Appellant along with Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar had come in

appeal earlier before this Authority seeking relief. After hearing the matter
was remanded to AEE, Bagalkot, for fresh enquiry and order. The AEE gas
has made enquiry and passed order on 26.07.2016. Aggrieved by this the
Appellant Trust, approached CGRF. The CGRF has upheld the proceedings of
AEE dated 26.07.2016 and hence this appeal.
2. In the appeal, the appellant has contended as follows:
(i) On perusal of para No.2 of the order dated 20.1.2017 of the CGRF
reveal that, earlier the Superintending Engineer, Bagalkote, vide
order dated 21.05.2011, ordered for supply under Clause 3.2.3 of
KERC (Regulations) to the applicants who are all similarly situated
as that of the appellant. Further, the AEE has also stated before
the CGRF that though the earlier Section Officer has provided
electrify supply to the applicants similarly situated as that of the
appellant under Regulation 3.2.3 of KERC (Recovery of Expenditure
Regulations), he would not provide electricity supply to the
appellant. The Superintending Engineer in his order dated
21.05.2011 has indicated some of the sites, the said order is
applicable to the remaining plots (such other layouts). The AEE
has given power supply under Regulation 3.2.3 of KERC (Recovery
of Expenditure) Regulations to persons of his choice, but has
instructed the appellant to obtain power supply under Regulation
3.2.1.
(ii) To consider their request under clause 3.2.3 of KERC (Recovery of

Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2004 since the
2017 -- Page 43 of 112

site in question is an abandoned one as stated by the AEE earlier

before the Ombudsman;
(iii) The Superintending Engineer, Bagalkot, vide order dated

21.05.2011 has permitted to give power for such abandoned sites
by collecting supply charges;
(iv) Even in Veerapura village including the owner of the land the
Licensee Authorities have given power under Clause 3.2.3 of KERC
(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations,
2004.
3. The learned Advocate for the respondent has filed the written
submissions which is as follows:
(i) The appellant is the owner of site Nos.11 and 13, Veerapura
village in R.S.106/B, which comes within the jurisdiction of
Bagalkot City Municipality. The appellant obtained temporary
electricity connection before putting up construction, and after
completion of construction applied for permanent electricity
connection with relevant documents. The application was
rejected by the AEE on the ground that electricity connection has
to be obtained under KERC (Recovery of Expenditure) Regulations.
(ii) Survey number 106/B belongs to one Jagadish Shivanagowda

Goudar and he has formed a layout. Jagadish Shvainagouda
Goudar has submitted an application seeking power supply to the
plots bearing Nos.17 and 18. The appellant Trust is a tenant under
Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar. Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar is
one of the Trustees. The Trust has submitted an application for
power supply to the plot bearing Nos.11 and 13 which have been
2017 -- Page 44 of 112

carved in the land in survey number 106/B. The respondent while

considering the aforesaid applications, intimated to the appellant
and also to Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar to avail power supply
under self-execution scheme as provided under Regulation 3.2.1 of
(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity)
Regulations,2004, since the application by Jagadish Shivanagowda
Gowdar who is the Developer of the layout and therefore, the
layout does not fall under Abandoned layout;
(iii) The appellant Trust and Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar have

approached the CGRF in two separate complaints and the CGRF
clubbed both the cases and passed a common order dated
27.08.2015 that the appellant and Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar
have to avail power supply under self-execution as per Section
3.2.1 of KERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity
Regulation2, 2004, and dismissed both the complaints;
(iv) The appellant and aforesaid Jagadish Shivanagowdar Goudar filed

appeals before the Ombudsman. After hearing arguing the
arguments and considering the Regulations 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.3
and 3.2.4 has set aside the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by the
CGRF and remitted back the matter to the AEE to examine afresh
and to pass an order in accordance with law after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the Appellant thereon;
(v) The AEE after providing ample opportunity to the appellant Trust
and Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar has passed detailed order
after consdiering all the objections, intimated to the appellant
Trust and Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar, who is also a Trustee of
2017 -- Page 45 of 112

the Appellant Trust and also the Developer of the layout in survey
number 106/B. Thus the Developer is much available to develop
the infrastructure of the Layout and therefore, the Layout in
survey number 106/B does not fall under the abandoned Layout
and therefore, the Appellant herein and the aforesaid Jagadish
Shivanagowda Goudar, who is the Trustee of the Appellant herein
have to avail power supply under Self execution Scheme as
provided under Regulation 3.2.1 of KERC (Recovery of Expenditure
for Supply of electricity) Regulations, 2004;
(vi) The aforesaid Jagadish Shivanaowda Goudar, though he is the

Trustee of the Appellant Trust herein has not challenged the order
of the respondent. However, the Appellant Trust under which the
aforesaid Developer Shri Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar has filed
a complaint before the CGRF, the 2nd round litigation in Case
No.3/2016. The CGRF considering the grounds urged by the
appellant trust passed an order “the Appellant does not come
within the abandoned Layout and therefore the Appellant has to
avail Power Supply under Regulation 3.2.1 of KERC (Recovery of
Expenditure of Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2004;
(vii) The Appellant Trust has filed the above appeal contending that
averment of the appellant that there is availment of power to
various persons in survey number 102/1 of Veerapura village will
not come to the rescue of the appellant, since the land in survey
number 102/1 of Veerapura village, the layout was formed and
wherein the various persons who had purchased sites and in the
first instance, the purchaser approached seeking power supply and
2017 -- Page 46 of 112

therefore, the Layout has been treated as abandoned Layout in

survey number 102/2;
(viii) The list of installations serviced to the various persons and the
Layout Plan, clearly demonstrate that the power supply is given in
the names of purchasers of the sites in question. After providing
power supply to the site owners, the land owner has also availed
power supply and by that time the Layout was treated as
abandoned layout and therefore, the same benefit cannot be
made applicable to the case of the appellant herein, since the
appellant is a Trust and the aforesaid Jagadish Shivanagowda
Goudar is one of the Trustee of the appellant Trust and the
Appellant Trust is not claiming the ownership of the property, and
admittedly the Trust is a tenant under the aforesaid Jagadish
Shivanagowda Goudar. Sri Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar being
the Developer of the Layout in survey number 106/B, has created
the appellant Trust and therefore, the Developer is much available
to develop the infrastructure. Hence the appellant has to avail
power supply under Self Execution Scheme as provided under
Regulation 3.2.1 of KERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of
Electricity) Regulations, 2004. The appellant is not entitled any of
the prayer in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4 This Authority vide its order dated 21.03.2016 has allowed the appeal
and remanded the matter to the AEE for fresh consideration. Thereafter,
the AEE has conducted the proceedings 26.07.2016 and has held that the
applicant Jagadisha Shivanagowda Goudar is much available. Hence, the
Applicants (Jagadish Shivanagowda Goudar and Mallikarjuna Trust) have to
2017 -- Page 47 of 112

avail power supply under self-execution schedule under Regulation 3.2.1 of

K.E.R.C (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2004.
5. The case was remanded for a fresh consideration. The AEE has heard
the matter and has ordered that the appellant should get the power
connection as prescribed under Clause 3.2.1. In case of Veerapura Layout
wherein the individual site owners were given power connection as
prescribed under Clause 3.2.3 since it was declared as abandoned layout. In
the instant case, on perusal of records and submissions made it is seen that,
the developer Sri Jagadish Shivanagowdar Goudar is a Trustee of the
Appellant Trust. Thus he is very much available. It all shows that he has not
abandoned the layout. The contention of the appellant that there is
availment of power by the purchasers in survey number 102/1 of Veerapura
village is also examined. It is seen from the records that the site purchasers
have approached the Licensee for power supply separately and Licensee has
considered it as an abandoned layout.
6. The submissions made by both the parties considered. The appellant

Trust is tenant under Sri Jagadish Shivanagowdar Goudar – developer of
layout. It shows that the developer is much available to develop
infrastructure as required under Clause 3.2.1 of KERC (Recovery of
Expenditure for Supply of electricity) Regulations, 2004. Thus the order
passed by the CGRF appear to be in order. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.N.Krishnaiah)
2017 -- Page 48 of 112

To:
1. Sri Ranganath M.padamukhe, Sector number 10, Plot No.6,

Model-C, Navanagar, Bagalkot – 587 103
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El), O & M, City sub-division,

HESCOM, Sector No.25, Navanagar, near SBI, Bagalkot.
3. The Chairperson, CGRF & Superintending Engineer, O & M Circle,

HESCOM, Vidyagiri, Bagalkot – 587 102
8. Secretary, KERC
****
2017 -- Page 49 of 112

1
D-929

Case No.OMB/M/G-271/2016
Dated : 21.08.2017
Harikrishna Rao,
Partner,
M/s.Radha Electrical Industries,
3/87-2, Main Road, Kulai,
Mangalore – 575 019 … Appellant
(Party in person)
V/S
1. Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M),

MESCOM,
Baikampady,
Mangalore
(AEE in person)
2. The Chairperson,
C.G.R.F.
MESCOM
O & M Circle, Attavara,
Mangaluru … Respondents
*****
2017 -- Page 50 of 112

OMB/M/G-271/2016. Harikrishna Rao – vs AEE & another 2

Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by CGRF, Mangalore, dated
14.07.2016 claiming compensation at Rs.50-00 per day for the delay in
refunding the security deposit amount with interest and also compensation
for the inconvenience.
2. The appellant earlier had approached this Authority (Ombudsman) in

OMB/M/G-197/2014 against the order dated 30.09.2014 of the CGRF
pertaining to (a) non-refunding of Service Line Charges, (b) Non-refunding of
Security Deposit, (c) refusal of the Licensee to pay compensation for delay in
refunding Service Line Charges and Security Deposit at Rs.50/- per each day
of delay and (d) non-payment of interest on Security Deposit and Service
Line Charges. The Ombudsman after considering the submissions made by
both the parties passed the order dated 22.01.2015 partially allowing the
appeal and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent. The Order of the
Ombudsman is as follows
(i) The appellant is not eligible for refund of service line charges and,
hence, the plea for refund of service licence charges is dismissed;
(ii) The 1st respondent is directed to examine the claims of the

appellant regarding refund of security deposits under Clause 9 of
KERC (Security Deposit) Regulations, 2007 within 30 days from the
passing of the order. If the appellant is found eligible for refund of
the entire additional security deposit, the 1st respondent shall
refund such amounts immediately and in case found ineligible, the
1st respondent shall intimate the same to the appellant within a
reasonable period;
2017 -- Page 51 of 112

(iii) The claims of the appellant for payment of compensation for delay
in refunding certain amount by the 1st respondent is hereby
dismissed as claims are not made in proper form and also on the
ground that the appellant not exhausted the legal remedies
available under the law.
3. Thereafter the Appellant approached the Respondent No.1 seeking

reliefs as per the Order by the Ombudsman.
4. The AEE in his letter dated 06.12.2016 has submitted a detailed report
on the action taken in pursuance of the order of Ombudsman dated
22.01.2015 and order of CGRF dated 14.07.2016 . He has reported that he
has complied with the directions of the CGRF for payment of interest at 1%
on the additional security deposit for the period from 01.09.2009 to
21.11.2013.
5. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the AEE, the Appellant has

approached the CGRF. The CGRF after considering the averments made by
both parties has ordered as follows :
“ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («), PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£Á
G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, ¨ÉÊPÀA¥ÁrgÀªÀgÀÄ PÉAiÀÄÄJ¯ï – 3039 ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ SÁvÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æ

ºÀjPÀÈµÀÚ gÁªï PÉ. ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀÄ, ªÉÄ: gÁzsÁ J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì EAqÀ¹ÖçÃ¸ï, PÀÄ¼Áå,
ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1.9.2009 jAzÀ 21.11.2013 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è£À
“ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj” ¨sÀzÀævÁ oÉÃªÀtÂ ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ ªÀiÁºÉAiÀiÁ£À 1% zÀgÀzÀ°è zÀAqÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ

§rØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ (¨sÀzÀævÁ oÉÃªÀtÂ)
2017 -- Page 52 of 112

¤AiÀÄªÀiÁªÀ½ 2007gÀ PÀArPÉ 6.2(©) gÀAvÉ F DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 30

¢ªÀ¸ÀzÉÆ¼ÀUÁV ¥ÁªÀw¹ ¥Á®£Á ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.”
6. Again aggrieved by the order of the CGRF, the Appellant has filed this
appeal.
7. The proceedings of AEE, order of CGRF and the averments made by

the Appellant are perused.
8. The claim of the Appellant is for payment of compensation at Rs.50/-

per day for the delay in refund of additional security deposit as per
Notification No.D/01/03 dated 24.05.2004 i.e. KERC Licensees Standards of
Performance) Regulations, 2004. On this issue, the CGRF in their order dated
14.07.2016 have ordered for payment of 1% penal interest as per KERC
Security Deposit Regulations, 2007.
9. The CGRF in their order appears to have taken into consideration the
latest Regulation passed in the year 2007. With this CGRF has allowed the
appeal and ordered for payment of interest on delayed payment which
appears to be in order. There are no vital and substantial reasons to
interfere with the order of the CGRF. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.N. Krishnaiah)
2017 -- Page 53 of 112

To :
1. Harikrishna Rao, Partner, M/s.Radha Electrical Industries, 3/87-2,

Main Road, Kulai, Mangalore – 575 019
2. Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M), MESCOM, Baikampady,

Mangalore
3. The Chairperson, C.G.R.F. MESCOM, Office of the Superintending

Engineer, O & M Circle, Attavara, Mangaluru, Phone : 0824-2448582

2017 -- Page 54 of 112

D-942
«zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¥Á®gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è
9/2, 6£ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀr, ªÀÄºÁ°ëöä ZÉÃA§gïì, ªÀÄºÁvÀä UÁA¢ü gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 001
G¥À¹Üw : ²æÃ ©.J£ï. PÀÈµÀÚAiÀÄå

«zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¥Á®gÀÄ
¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå OMB/M/G-275/2016

DzÉÃ±À ¢£ÁAPÀ : 28.09.2017
1. ²æÃ gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå
2. ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ
3. ²æÃ dUÀ¢Ã±À
4. ²æÃ gÀªÉÄÃ±À
5. ²æÃªÀÄw gÀÆ¥À
6. ²æÃªÀÄw ¸ÀÄ¯ÉÆÃZÀ£À
J®ègÀÆ ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ, ¨É¼ÀÆîgÀÄ CAZÉ, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ,

aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè. ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÀÄ … ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ
(EªÀgÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ ¥Àæw¤¢ü, ²æÃ JA.J¸ï.£ÁUÉÃ±ïUËqÀ)
V/S
1. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï (¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£É),

ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ PÀA¥À¤ ¤. (ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA),
ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ G¥À-«¨sÁUÀ, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ,
aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè.
(¸À.PÁ.E ¸ÀéA ºÁdj)
2017 -- Page 55 of 112

OMB/M/G-275/2016. Ramaiah & others – AEE & another 2
2. DzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ,

ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ PÀA¥À¤ ¤. (ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA),
C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj,
¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£É ªÀÈvÀÛ ,
ªÀÄzsÀÄªÀ£ï §qÁªÀuÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ,
aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 577 101 ... ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ
*****
1. F ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ (UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¥Á¯ï) ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À PÀ®A 21.02gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è

UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, EªÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ
31.03.2016gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
2. ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.12.2016gÀ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ G¥À-«¨sÁUÀzÀ

¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï gÀªÀjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«UÉ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÃ¼À¯ÁV,
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.01.2017

gÀ°è GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
3. ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.12.2016gÀ °TvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß F

PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄAr¹zÁÝgÉ.
(1)ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ J¯Áè «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ªÀj¹ DqÀðgï
£ÀA.JA-69/20/03/2013 gÀAvÉ PÁAiÀÄðzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄµÁ×£ÀUÉÆ½¹, ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï

¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §UÉºÀj¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß J.E.E. gÀªÀjUÉ
zÁPÀ°¹gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.
(2) F ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ GvÀÛgÀªÁV ¸ÀzÀj ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¸ÀÜ¼À ¥Àj²°¹, ¸Àj¥Àr¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÁV
¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ 2 ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉAiÉÄÃ ¸ÁªÀÄVæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ
2017 -- Page 56 of 112

ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ «£À: £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §UÉºÀj¹ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ

GvÀÛgÀ ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀ°®è;
(3) £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÄ£À: £ÁªÀÅ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj RÄzÀÄÝ ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ J¯Áè «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ªÀj¹, ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.
(4) DzÀgÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ
ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.11.2015 gÀAzÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ

PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðBPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgÀ («)gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §UÉºÀj¹gÀ°®è.
(5) DzÀÝjAzÀ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÆªÀÄzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀt

ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À, ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÈ¶ ¥ÀA¥ï¸Émï ¸ÁÜªÀgÀPÉÌ vÁ;
20.03.2013 jAzÀ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÉ KERC
(Licensees Standard performance) Regulations 2004 gÀ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï 1 gÀ (5)
gÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ ¢£À MAzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.50 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå §UÉºÀj¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ;
(6) ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.12.2015 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 14.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ

£ÀqÉ¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ.
£ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ KEE ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ RArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¥ÀævÀÄåvÀÛgÀ
¤ÃqÉ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÉÃ¢PÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ CªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀ°®è;
(7) CAwªÀÄªÁV ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjºÀj¸À®Ä ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¹

PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¹gÀÄªÀ ±À§j J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì, §tPÀ¯ïgÀªÀjUÉ vÀÄvÁðV
PÁ«ÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ CxÀªÁ ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¸À®Ä §zÀ°
ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ
ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ 63 PÉ« ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ PÉÃAzÀæ¢AzÀ «zÀÄåvï
2017 -- Page 57 of 112

¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ºÁ° F ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 45 ºÉZï.¦ ¤ÃgÁªÀj

¥ÀA¥ï¸ÉmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ ¨ÁQ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ «zÀÄåvï
¤®ÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ 63 PÉ.« ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 10 ºÉZï.¦. +
25 PÉ.« ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉÆgÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ PÉÃ½gÀÄªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀÅ

¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ CºÀªÁ®ÄzÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀægÀªÀgÀÄ
ºÉÃ½PÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀAvÉ PÀbÉÃj C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ
¸ÀvÁå¸ÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqÉ¹ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä DzÉÃ²¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ wÃªÀiÁð£À
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
(8) ¸ÀzÀj wÃªÀiÁð£ÀzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉÆ¼ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£À«zÁgÀjUÉ CxÀªÁ

¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÉÃ E®è. aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ wÃªÀiÁð£À ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ
ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉðÃ±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀjUÉ PÉÆjAiÀÄgï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
10.06.2016 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¥Àæw¤¢üAiÀiÁzÀ ²æÃ £ÁUÉÃ±ï UËqÀ JA.J¸ï, EªÀgÀÄ

ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎAiÀÄÆ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ wÃªÀiÁð£À ¤ÃqÀ°®è. CAwªÀÄªÁV
F «ZÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ 03.10.2016gÀAzÀÄ PÉÃAzÀæ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀPÀÄÌ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀr

C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («) ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À
¤ªÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ “¢£ÁAPÀ 02.11.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀÄ£À«UÉ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA

UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÆªÀÄzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÆÃj”
£ÀªÀÄä°è M§âgÁzÀ ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
(9) ¸ÀzÀj PÉÆÃjzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄÄ C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÆÃjzÀ
ªÀiÁ»w CªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ®¨sÀå«zÀÝAiÀiÁUÀÆå GzÉÝÃ±À ¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ
ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ CfðzÁgÀ¤UÉ «¼ÀA§ªÁV ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§ KPÉÊPÀ
2017 -- Page 58 of 112

GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀPÀÄÌ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀA.6(3) gÀAvÉ

PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA «¨sÁUÀ PÀbÉÃj EªÀjUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹
£ÀªÀÄä°è M§âgÁzÀ ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ EªÀjUÉ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
(10) F §UÉÎ ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ EªÀgÀÄ DPÉëÃ¥À ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹, C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï

(«) ¥Á®£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀÈvÀÛ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ, AiÀÄxÁ
¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRå EAf¤AiÀÄgï («), ªÀ®AiÀÄ PÀbÉÃj, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ
PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
(11) KvÀ£ÀäzsÉå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («), ¥Á®£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ

«¨sÁUÀ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ, C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï EªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ
ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆÃj §AzÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ£À: ªÀiÁ»w ºÀPÀÄÌ PÁ¬ÄzÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt
¸ÀA.6(3) gÀAvÉ ¸À.PÁ.JA. («) ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ EªÀjUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

F ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹zÀ CfðUÉ ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ ¸À.PÁ.EA («) EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ
11.11.2016gÀ°è ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ EªÀjUÉ zÁj vÀ¦à¸ÀÄªÀ GvÀÛgÀ ¤Ãr, FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ

ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¯ÉÆÃªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjºÀj¸À®Ä ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è
ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj 25 PÉ«J ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀÄªÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ
27.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¹, ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀªÀ£ÀÄß

ZÁ®£ÉUÉÆ½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÁV C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («), ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA ªÀÈvÀÛ PÀbÉÃj,
aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀzÁVAiÀÄÆ, ¢£À MAzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.50/-

¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ ªÉÄÃ¯Á¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
¤ÃqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DzÉÃ±À §A¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («)
ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA ªÀÈvÀÛ PÀbÉÃj, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj
¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ;
2017 -- Page 59 of 112

(12) C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («) ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA ªÀÈvÀÛ PÀbÉÃj EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ
23.11.2016 ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ EªÀjUÉ GvÀÛj¹, PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ

¸Àà¶×ÃPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤Ãr, UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
EªÀgÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ EªÀj
¢£ÁAPÀ 07.12.2016 gÀAzÀÄ vÀ®Ä¦zÉ. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±À

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀPÀÄÌ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ¢ PÉÆÃjzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀÈw £ÉÆAzÀtÂ
CAZÉ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV C¢üÃPÀëPÀ
EAf¤AiÀÄgï («) ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA ªÀÈvÀÛ PÀbÉÃj aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ F
DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß/PÉÆÃjzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå CAZÉ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
(13) «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ NA§qïìªÀÄ£ïUÉ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄÄ ¤ÃrzÀ wÃªÀiÁð£À PÉÊ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 30

¢£ÀzÉÆ¼ÀUÉ ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÁ¬ÄzÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÃ½zÉ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ DzÉÃ±À PÉÊ
¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.12.2016gÀAzÀÄ. CzÀÆ PÉÃAzÀæ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀPÀÄÌ

C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀr Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É. »ÃVgÀÄªÁUÀ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄªÀÄzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À
¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.03.2016 jAzÀ
30.04.2016gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉÆ¼ÀUÉ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁUÀ°®è.

DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üPÀgÀt F PÁ®«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ¤ß¹, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
PÉÊUÉwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀªÁV wÃªÀiÁð£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.
ªÉÄÃ°£À ªÁzÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
£ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ,

aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ ¤ÃrzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ
2017 -- Page 60 of 112

£ÁªÀÅ DPÉëÃ¥À ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃªÉ. F J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ ®AiÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹

wÃªÀiÁð£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.
(J) UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ
DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁPÀåzÀ¯ÉèÃ ¯ÉÆÃ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå ªÀÄrØPÉÃj
UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è EgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àPÉÆArzÉ. E®èªÁzÀ°è ªÉÄ// ±À§j J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì
EªÀgÀ PÀÆ° UÀÄwÛUÉ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆ½¹, EªÀjUÉ vÀÄvÀðV
PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¸À¨ÉÃPÁVAiÉÄÃ EgÀ°®è.
(©) ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ªÉÄ|| ±À§j J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì, §tPÀ¯ï EªÀgÀ PÀÆ° UÀÄwÛUÉ

PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆ½¹, ªÉÄ|| ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.01.2016 gÀAzÉÃ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj PÀ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀªÀ£ÀÄß
ZÁ®£ÉUÉÆ½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÁV, KEE ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.02.2016 gÀAzÉÃ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ

PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ EªÀgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀA¢zÀÝgÀÆ ªÉÄ// ±À§j
J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì EªÀgÀV vÀÄvÁðV PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ
DzÉÃ²¸À¨ÉÃPÁVAiÉÄÃ EgÀ°®è;
(¹) UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ

¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ JgÀqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁPÀåªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVzÉ. PÁgÀt
F »AzÉ EzÉÃ ¸À.PÁ¤.EA. («), ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ ²æÃ £ÁUÉÃ±ï UËqÀ
JA.J¸ï. ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ»w ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°èUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ
RArPÉªÁgÀÄAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃPÀgÀtPÉÌ
¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃªÉ. RArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀzÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀ r.Dgï.L.¦. 20

ºÉZï.¦. ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀ ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁj vÀ¦à¸À®Ä UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À
¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸À.PÁ.¤.EA («) ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉ
2017 -- Page 61 of 112

¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ r.Dgï.L.¦. 553-10 JZï.¦
r.DgÀ.F.¦.1413-10 JZï.¦. UÉ ¥ÀÄ£À: ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß CzÉÃ ªÀµÀð
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. 10 JZï.¦. ºÉÆgÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ PÀÄrAiÀÄÄªÀ ¤Ãj£À §¼ÀPÉUÉ
EzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 45 JZï.¦. ºÉÆgÉ
PÀrªÉÄAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀ §zÀ®Ä 50 JZï.¦.ºÉÆgÉ eÁ¹ÛAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EµÉÖÃ

C®èzÉ E£ÀÄß PÉ®ªÀÅ ¥ÀA¥ï¸ÉmïUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ,
EzÀ£ÀÄß UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¸À.PÁ.¤.
JA(«) ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ vÀA¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. F J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹zÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À.PÁ.¤. JA («) ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ
EªÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀ ºÁUÉ 10 JZï.¦ + 25 PÉ« ºÉÆgÉAiÀÄ §zÀ®Ä 60 JZï.¦
+ 25 PÉ« ºÉÆgÉ ©Ã¼ÀÄwÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß UÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ;
(r) ¸À.PÁ¤.EA («) ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ ¤ÃgÁªÀj

¥ÀA¥ï¸ÉmïUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ¤®ÄUÀqÉUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ,
DzÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ¤®ÄUÀqÉUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÉÃzÉPÉAiÀÄ
UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀA¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 4-5 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ®Æ

ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå JzÀgÀÄj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆgÉ
E®è EAzÀÄ RArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀzÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢£ÀÄß zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ
£ÁªÀÅ ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ;
(E) UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀgÀÄ

¤ÃrzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ 4£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁPÀåªÀ£ÀÄß M¥Àà®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è. PÁgÀt ¢£ÁAPÀ
20.03.2013gÀ°è PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÉÆÃ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå
§UÉºÀj¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.06.2014 gÀAzÀÄ Cfð

¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¹, ¯ÉÆÃ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå §UÉºÀj¹zÀÄÝ
2017 -- Page 62 of 112

¢£ÁAPÀ 31.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ. »ÃVgÀÄªÁUÀPÀ E¯ÁSÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ

PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ PÉ.E.DgÀ.¹. ¯ÉÊ¸É¤ìÃ¸ï ¸ÁÖAqÀqïð
¥sÀgïªÀiÁªÉÄð£ïì gÉUÀÄå¯ÉÃ±À£ïì 2004 ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 20.03.2013 jAzÁUÀ° PÉÆ£É
¥ÀPÀë 16.06.2014 jAzÁUÀ°Ã ¢£À MAzÀPÉÌ PÁAiÉÄÝ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ gÀÆ.50/-

¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ
aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀÅ
¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ E¯ÁSÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
gÀQë¸À¯ÉÃ «£À: PÁAiÉÄÝ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ E®è, EzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ DPÉëÃ¦¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.
(J¥sï) UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ
DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ 5£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁPÀåªÀ£ÀÄß M¥Àà®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è. F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ

«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÃ¼ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. PÁgÀt ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ
gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß
CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¹zÁUÀ, 20.11.2015 gÀAzÀÄ gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À.PÁ¤.JA

(«) EªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ §A¢gÀ¯ÉÃ E®è, gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¤AzÀ ºÁQ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå
JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ºÀjd£ÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, C£ÀPÀëgÀ¸ÀÜgÁVzÀÄÝ, F CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄ§ð¼ÀPÉ
ªÀiÁr §¯ÁvÁÌgÀ ªÀiÁr E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÉÃ CªÀjUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÁUÉ
¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå EªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¤AzÀ ¸À» ºÁQ¹PÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVzÉ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£À«zÁgÀgÀ¯ÉÆè§âgÁzÀ ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ EªÀgÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVzÉ. F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ
ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ, ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À JzÀÄj£À¯ÉèÃ ºÉÃ½PÉ
¤ÃrzÁÝUÀÆå ¸ÀºÀ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ
aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ F ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
2017 -- Page 63 of 112

(f) UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ

¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¹zÁUÀ : 1) ¸À.PÁ.¤. JA. («)
ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ°£À PÀgÀÄuÉ¬ÄAzÀ 25 PÉ«J
¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ M¥Àà®Ä
¸ÁzsÀå«®è. PÁgÀt F §UÉÎ ¸Àà¶×ÃPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß (3) £É CPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ°è
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. (2) gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ EªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå
E®è JAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ M¥Àà®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è. F §UÉÎ
¸Àà¶×ÃPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ (5) gÀ°è ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. (3) PÁªÀÄUÁj
ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÄÝ 20.03.2013 gÀ°è, UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ
C¼ÀªÀr¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ 28.01.2016 gÀ°è. »ÃVgÀÄªÁUÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ

PÁgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß M¥Àà®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è. PÉÃªÀ® MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ°è F
PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CAzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ¼ÉUÁ ®
DgÀA¨sÀªÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ dÆ£ï wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ. UÀzÉÝAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃ¸ÁAiÀÄ
DgÀA¨sÀªÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ dÆ£ï £ÀAvÀgÀ. »ÃVgÀÄªÁUÀ 20.03.2013 jAzÀ 3

wAUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÉ ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¸À§ºÀÄ¢vÀÄÛ. F PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀzÉ
3 ªÀµÀðzÀ §½PÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ FUÀ UÀzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¥ÉÊgÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ,

PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¸À®Ä PÀµÀÖªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ JEE («)
ºÉÃ½gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ CPÉëÃ¦¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£À
¤®ðPÀë¢AzÀ GAmÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåUÉ E¯ÁSÉAiÉÄÃ dªÁ¨ÁÝj «£À: UÁæºÀPÀ£À®è.
ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ¸À.PÁ¤.EA («) ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ 2015gÀ°è §AzÀAvÀºÀ

¨sÁjÃ ªÀÄ¼É¬ÄAzÀ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä «¼ÀA§ªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ
w½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÆß ¸ÀºÀ ¤PÁj¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ;
(ºÉZï) ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ EªÀgÀ ºÉÃ½PÉUÉ ¸À.PÁ.¤.EA («) ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ

EªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀævÀÄåvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÆß ¸ÀºÀ £ÁªÀÅ ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.
2017 -- Page 64 of 112

(L) ¸À.PÁ.¤.E («) ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ RArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ
24.11.2015gÀ RArPÉ 4 gÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå EgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£À£ÀÄß

M¦àPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀÄ M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ;
(eÉ) ¸À.PÁ.¤. EA («) ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ

ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ RArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ
¢£ÁAPÀ 24.11.2015 gÀ RArPÉ 4 gÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå

EgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï
¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀÄ M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
(PÉ) ¸À.PÁ.¤. EA («) ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ

ªÉÃ¢PÉ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¤rzÀ RArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ
24.11.2015gÀ RArPÉ 5 gÀ°è PÀÄrAiÀÄÄªÀ ¤Ãj£À ¸ÁÜªÀgÀ«zÀÄÝ, EzÀPÉÌ

AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ zÀÆgÀÄ §A¢®è JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV w½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß
£ÁªÀÅ ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. PÁgÀt F §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄÛ¬ÄAzÀ
¸ÀzÀj «zÀÄåvï C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ §gÉzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÆß ªÀiÁ£Àå
£ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üPÀgÀtzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄwÛzÉÝÃªÉ.
(J¯ï) ¸À.PÁ.¤. EA («) EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÃ¢PÉUÉ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÁgÀuÁ
ªÉÃ¢PÉgÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ RArPÉªÁgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 24.11.2015gÀ GvÀÛgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ
RArPÉ 5gÀ°è ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¥ÀA¥ï¸Émï UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¨ÁQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ®Ä

§zÀÝgÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ DPÉëÃ¦¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. PÁgÀt
UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA §zÀÝgÁVzÀÝ°è
¥ÀA¥ï¸Émï UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ ¨ÁQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ®Ä §zÀÞgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÁUÀÆå ¸ÀºÀ
gÉÊvÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸Àé®à »AzÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¨ÁQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
2017 -- Page 65 of 112

§rØ ¸À»vÀ PÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ «£À: ¨ÁQ G½¹PÉÆAr®è. ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ

AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀåQÛAiÀiÁUÀ°Ã/ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA DUÀ°Ã CªÀgÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw¥Á¢¸ÀÄªÀ
eÉÆvÉUÉ CªÀgÀ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÆß ¸ÀºÀ ¥Á°¸À®Ä §zÀÞgÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA ¯ÉÆÃ
ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀA¥ï¸Émï UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ¥ÀA¥ï¸Émï
¸ÀÄlÄÖºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉ. EzÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁgÀÄ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÀÄ?
4. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.01.2017

gÀ°è GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÁÝgÉ.
(1) ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ G¥À-«¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ §gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è
§gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ 11PÉ« zÁgÀzÀºÀ½î «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ°è ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ 63

PÉ«J ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ¢AzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ºÁ° ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É 45 ºÉZï.¦ L.¦.¸ÁÜªÀgÀ, 10 ºÉZï.¦ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀ, 10 ºÉZï.¦ PÀÄrAiÀÄÄªÀ
¤Ãj£À ¸ÁÜªÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 25 Q.ªÁå UÀÈºÀ §¼ÀPÉ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ ºÉÆgÉ
EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÁ° ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ J¯ï.n.ªÀiÁUÀðG UÀÄqÀØUÁqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀzÉÝ
vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÁ° ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ 63 PÉ«J

¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É «zÀÄåvï ºÉÆgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀrªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è
ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj 25 PÉ«J ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¸À®Ä CAzÁdÄ ¥ÀnÖ vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ
20.03.2013 gÀAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðzÉÃ±À «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw

zÉÆgÉwgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä «zÀÄåvï UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ
²ªÀªÀÄÆwð ªÉÄ// ±À§j J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì §tPÀ¯ï gÀªÀgÀÄ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä
M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ PÀÆ°UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÁqïð£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ F PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ J¯Áè ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR
¸ÁªÀÄVæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.09.2014 gÀAzÉÃ GUÁæt¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ

²æÃ ²ªÀªÀÄÆwðgÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
2017 -- Page 66 of 112

DzÁUÀÆå ¸ÀºÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ F PÁªÀÄUÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

F §UÉÎ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀjUÉ C£ÉÃPÀ ¨Áj ªÀiËTPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄÄSÉÃ£À
w½¸À¯ÁVzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ F PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. F
§UÉÎ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («), ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA, ªÀÄÄrUÉgÉ
PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀPÀët ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹ £ÉÆÃn¸ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F
»£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀ MvÀÛqÀ«zÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ
PÀ¼ÉzÀ 2013-14 gÀ°è PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¸ÁzÀåªÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
2015 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C°è£À ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ

gÉÊvÀgÀÄ UÀzÉÝUÀ¼À°è ¥ÉÊgÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ, PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¸À®Ä
PÀµÀÖªÁzÀÄzÀÝjAzÀ 02 wAUÀ¼À PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À PÉÆÃj ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÀÄzÉå

UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ ªÉÊvÀÛ PÀbÉÃj aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è
¢£ÁAPÀ 02.11.2015 gÀ°è zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹ ¢£À«AzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.50/- (¯ÉÊ¸É£ÀÄìzÁgÀgÀ
PÁAiÀiÁðzsÁjvÀ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖUÀ¼ÀÄ) (Licensees Standard of Performance)

¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ;
(2) F »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj 25 PÉ«J ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C®ªÀr¸ÀÄªÀ

PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆ°UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä «¼ÀA§ ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ EªÀgÀ
CªÁqïð£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï(«), ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ
¢£ÁAPÀ 20.01.2016 ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è gÀzÀÄÝ ¥Àr¹ ¸ÀzÀj UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¥ÀÄà¥ÀnÖUÉ

¸ÉÃj¸À®Ä ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ. UÁæºÀPÀgÀ »vÀzÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ F PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀ»¹zÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀÄ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ
27.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¹, ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ

ZÁ®£ÉUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ;
2017 -- Page 67 of 112

(3) ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀzÀ°è zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.11.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA PÀÄAzÀÄ

PÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ ªÀÈvÀÛ PÀbÉÃj, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À C£ÀéAiÀÄ
«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀiÁV DzÉÃ±À ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.03.2016 gÀ°è wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ D
¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj 25 PÉ«J ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¹ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ¸ÉÃªÉ ºÁUÀÄ
ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÆmÉÃeï ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀiÁVzÉ. F »AzÉ EzÀÝ 63 PÉ«J ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ
ªÉÄÃ°zÀÝ 45 ºÉZï.¦ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¥ÀA¥ï¸ÉmïUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ
gÀÆ.6.07 ®PÀë ¨ÁQ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjªÀÄzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¤®ÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ

zÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀAvÉ ¯ÉÆÃ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå GzÀã«¸ÀÄªÀÅ¢®è, F §UÉÎ
zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ°è M§âgÁzÀ ²æÃ gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå £ÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.11.2015 gÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀ
¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è w½¹zÁÝgÉ. ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ 66/11 PÉ« «zÀÄåvï «vÀgÀuÁ PÉÃAzÀæ¢AzÀ F

¥ÁæAvÀåPÉÌ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄUÀwÛzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄRå eÁ®zÀ°è KgÀÄ¥ÉÃgÁzÁUÀ PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ
¨Áj ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï Kj½vÀªÁzÁUÀ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÉÃ
PÁgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢lÄÖ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÀ®è F §UÉÎ
DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ¯ÉèÃ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥ÀªÁVzÉ. ªÉÃ¢PÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ,
J¸ï.¹., ²æÃ dUÀ¢Ã±À, ²æÃ gÀªÉÄÃ±À ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃªÀÄw gÀÆ¥À EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ
UÁæºÀPÀgÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è;
(4) E£ÀÄß zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀAvÉ CfðAiÀÄ°è wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁr®èªÉAzÀÄ C¢üÃPÀëPÀ

EAf¤AiÀÄgï («) ªÀÈvÀÛ PÀbÉÃj, ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ
23.11.2016 gÀ°è ¸ÀàµÀÖ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
(5)ªÉÃ¢PÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ J¸ï.¹, ²æÃ dUÀ¢Ã±À, ²æÃ gÀªÉÄÃ±À
ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃªÀÄw gÀÆ¥À EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ UÁæºÀPÀgÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è, F
«ZÁgÀzÀ°è GzÉÝÃ±À ¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ WÀ£ÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÄA¢¸À®Ä
¥Àæw¤¢üAiÀiÁV £ÁªÀÄ ¤zÉðÃ±À£ÀUÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ²æÃ JA.J¸ï.£ÁUÉÃ±ï UËqÀ, ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ,
¨É¼ÀÆîgÀÄ CAZÉ, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ.
2017 -- Page 68 of 112

(6) KPÉAzÀgÉ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥Àæw¤¢üAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀ ²æÃ £ÁUÉÃ±ïUËqÀ MAzÀÄ 5 C.±À.

¤ÃgÁªÀj ¥ÀA¥ï¸Émï «zÀÄåvï zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉA§ PÁgÀtPÉÌ
eÁUÀÈvÀzÀ¼À¢AzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå J£À.¹. 51 ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.04.2013gÀ°è
zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ¨ÁåPï ©¯ï gÀÆ.83,167/- zÀAqÀ «¢ü¹zÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ

aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À f¯Áè UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁV «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀiÁV
ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA ¥ÀgÀªÁV DzÉÃ±ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.05.2017gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è w½¹zÁÝgÉ.

F ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¥ÀA¥ï¸Émï C£ÀÄß ¨ÁåPï©¯ï ¨ÁQ PÀnÖ®èzÀ PÁgÀt «zÀÄåvï ¤®ÄUÀqÉ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ F jÃwAiÀiÁV zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. FUÀ®Æ EªÀgÀ ¨ÁQ
gÀÆ.1,09,803.00 DVzÀÄÝ PÀA¥À¤UÉ ¸ÀÄ¹ÛzÁgÀgÁVzÁÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ
gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå gÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£É §¼ÀPÉ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀ r.DgÀ.K.¦-19666 (J¯ï.n -
2) UÀ¼À°è CA¢£À ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è gÀÆ.4,694.00 ¨ÁQ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉÃ ¸ÀÄ¹ÛzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
5. ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À.PÁ.E. gÀªÀgÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.03.2017

¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¥ÀævÀÄåvÀÛgÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ.
(J) J.E.E. gÁd±ÉÃRgïgÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½gÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ
¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå : 8865-68 ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.03.2016 gÀ°è
wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj 25 PÉ.«.J ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ C¼ÀªÀr

ªÉÇ¯ÉÖÃeï ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀiÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ RArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀzÀ
¥ÁågÁ 5 gÀ°è ªÉÄ: ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïìì, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
20.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ
¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¹ 31.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ZÁ®£ÉUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ JA§

CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ºÁUÁV F DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ §UÉºÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ
JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî.
2017 -- Page 69 of 112

(©) ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀjzÀÄ E£ÀÆß F »AzÉ 63 PÉ.«.«. ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ 45 ºÉZï.¦
¤ÃgÁªÀj ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ¸ÉlÄÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ 6.07 ®PÀë ¨ÁQ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉÃ

EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¤®ÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀAvÉ
¯ÉÆÃ ªÉÇÃ¯ÉÖÃeï ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå GzÀã«¸ÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ
¨ÁQ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉÃ EzÀÄÝzÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð PÀrvÀUÉÆ½¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁQ ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¤ÃqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ
JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr JAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÀgÀÆ EzÀÄªÀgÉUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
CzÀ£ÀÄß vÁªÀÅ vÀj¹PÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw. ºÁUÉ EzÉÃ 63 PÉ.«.J

¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀAa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 63 PÉ.« F ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj 25 PÉ.«
¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀªÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä MlÄÖ JA.PÉ.UÀÄgÀÄªÀ¥ÀàUËqÀ 10 + 5
ºÉZï.¦ PÀÄrAiÀÄÄªÀ ¤Ãj£À ¸ÁÜªÀgÀ 5 + 5 JA.J¸ï.gÀªÉÄÃ±ïUËqÀ 7.5
ºÉZï.¦. JA.PÉ.G¥ÉÃAzÀæ 10 ºÉZï.¦, ºÉZï.JA.¥Àæ¢Ã¥ï 7.5 ºÉZï.¦,
JA.«.£ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀ 10 ºÉZï.¦., J.PÉ.ºÀjÃ±ï 10 ºÉZï.¦. JA.Dgï.
®PÀé÷ÚtUËqÀ 10 ºÉZÀ.¦.JA.J¸ï.£ÁUÉÃ±ïUËqÀ 5 ºÉZï.¦. + UÀÈºÀ§¼ÀPÉUÉ
E¶ÖzÀÝÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÁgÀzÉÃ §jÃ 10 ºÉZï.¦

UÀÈºÀ§¼ÀPÉ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁvÀæ EgÀÄªÀÅzÉAzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr
DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÁj vÀ¦à¸ÀÄªÀ UÀÈºÀ§¼ÀPÉ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁvÀæ EgÀÄªÀÅzÉAzÀÄ
vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁ»w DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÁj vÀ¦à¸ÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ.
(¹) E£ÀÄß ¥ÁågÀ 7PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ

PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV ©.¦.J¯ï. ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃn
zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ²æÃ gÁd±ÉÃRgï,
J.E.E. ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ, EªÀgÀÄ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÉ
2017 -- Page 70 of 112

ªÉÃ¢PÉUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ PÀArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀzÀ°è (C£ÉPÀëgï J 10 ©) ²æÃ
gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå r.Dgï.J¯ï. 19666, ²æÃ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ DgÀ.DgÀ.J¯ï. 28990

ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À Dgï.Dgï. ¸ÀASÉåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ
FUÀ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÀ®è.
(r) ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ 63 PÉ.«.«. ªÁå¦ÛUÉ §gÀÄªÀ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ¸ÉlÄÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

UÀÈºÀ§¼ÀPÉ «zÀÄåvïUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjzÀAvÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁ»w
ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁV 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÁzÀgÀÆ

C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀzÉÃ, ªÀÄ£À«UÀ½UÉ ¸ÀàA¢¸ÀzÉÃ , DAiÉÆÃUÀPÀÆÌ zÁj vÀ¦à¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ
GvÀÛgÀ ¤Ãr, ¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀAvÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀzÉÃ, ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀV
²æÃ gÁd±ÉÃRgï, J.E.E.AiÀÄªÀgÉÃ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ WÀ£ÀvÉUÉ zsÀPÉÌ
vÀgÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉAiÉÄÃ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ PÉ.E.Dgï.¹ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀAvÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÃ½zÀ
£À¤ßAzÀ®èªÉA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ§AiÀÄ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.
(
(E) E£ÀÄß £À£Àß 5 ºÉZï.¦. ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¥ÀA¥ÀÄ¸ÉnÖUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ DPÀæªÀÄ

¸ÀPÀæªÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ AiÀÄr CªÀgÉÃ ¸ÀÜ¼À, ¨É¼É ¥Àj²Ã°¹ J¯ï.n. 4J
dPÁwAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀ C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀzÉÃ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¤Ãr 2009 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀ
¥Àj²Ã°¹ «zÀÄåvï ©®è£ÀÄßPÀnÖ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ «ÄÃlgï C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÆ
«ÄÃlgï jÃrAUï vÉÆÃj¹ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ®Æ «zÀÄåvï ±ÀÄ®ÌªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÆ°
ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉÃ PÉ.E.DgÀ.¹ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ eÁUÀævÀ zÀ¼ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ
ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀzÉÃ r.Dgï.L.¦. 1252 ¸ÁÜªÀgÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀ

C¼ÀªÀ¹¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÉÃj ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀPÀÆÌ
¸ÀàA¢¸ÀzÉÃ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÉÃªÁ £ÀÆå£ÀvÉ §UÉÎ aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝ, D §UÉÎ WÀ£À DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è
«ZÁgÀuÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÁzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ §zÀÝ£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£ÉA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
vÀªÀÄä ¢ªÀå CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀ§AiÀÄ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.
2017 -- Page 71 of 112

(J¥sï) C®èzÉ PÉ.E.Dgï.¹ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀAvÉ ¨ÁåPï ©°è£À ±ÉÃ 50 gÀµÀÖ£ÀÄß PÀnÖ

¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ §zÀÝ£ÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÁV
ºÉÃ½ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÀÆ EzÀÄªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄ£À«UÉ
¸ÀàA¢¸ÀzÉÃ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ.E.Dgï.¹ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀAvÉ ¥Àæw¤¢üAiÀiÁV £ÁåAiÀÄ
PÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ
«ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀ§AiÀÄ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.
6. zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥Àæw¤¢ü ²æÃ £ÁUÉÃ±ïUËqÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 18.04.2017 ºÁUÀÆ
3.08.2017 ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è «zÀÄåvï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ PÀvÀðªÀå

¤ªÀð»¸ÀzÉÃ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß J¸ÉVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ¢£ÁAPÀ
19.12.1016gÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹ ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÀÄZÀÑj¹zÁÝgÉ.
7. aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ 31.03.2016 gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¹zÉ.
8. C¦Ã¯ïzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄAr¹gÀÄªÀ °TvÀ ªÁzÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ J¯Áè

¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è£À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉ. UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ
ªÉÃ¢PÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ §UÉÎ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ¢¹PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ
«zÀÄåvï ¥ÀÆgÉÊPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DVgÀÄªÀ ªÀåvÀåAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÀÆ®APÀÄµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã®£É
ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃQvÀÄÛ. C¦Ã®ÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ªÁzÀ, zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è,
E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ §UÉÎ ºÉZÁÑV G¯ÉèÃRªÁVzÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è
UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀÆgÉÊPÉAiÀÄ
§UÉÎ DVgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀvÁå¸ÀvÀåvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÆvÉÆÛªÉÄä ¢ÃWÀðªÁzÀ
DzÉÃ±À ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
9. CAvÉAiÉÄÃ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ F C¦Ã®£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¹, ªÉÄÃ°£À

C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄ£Àgï «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr, ¥ÀæZÀ°vÀ
2017 -- Page 72 of 112

¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ²ÃWÀæªÁV DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä PÀÄAzÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ,

aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄgÀ½¹ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.
¸À»/-
(©.J£ï. PÀÈµÀÚAiÀÄå)
«zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¥Á®gÀÄ
UÉ:
1. ²æÃ JA.J¸ï.£ÁUÉÃ±ïUËqÀ, ªÀÄrØPÉgÉ, ¨É¼ÀÆîgÀÄ CAZÉ, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ

f¯Éè.
2. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï (¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£É), ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ

«zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ PÀA¥À¤ ¤. (ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA), ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ G¥À-«¨sÁUÀ, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ,
aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè.
3. DzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, UÁæºÀPÀgÀ PÀÄAzÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ ¤ªÁgÀuÁ ªÉÃ¢PÉ, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ

¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ PÀA¥À¤ ¤. (ªÉÄ¸ÁÌA), C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¥Á®£É ªÀÈvÀÛ , ªÀÄzsÀÄªÀ£ï §qÁªÀuÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 577 101
4. ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ PÀA¥À¤UÀ¼À ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉðÃ±ÀPÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ
5. ªÀiÁ£Àå DzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, PÉ.E.Dgï.¹ gÀªÀgÀ D¥ÀÛ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
6. ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ (J), PÉ.E.Dgï.¹ gÀªÀgÀ D¥ÀÛ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
7. ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ (JA), PÉ.E.Dgï.¹ gÀªÀgÀ D¥ÀÛ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð

8. PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, PÉ.E.Dgï.¹.
******
2017 -- Page 73 of 112

D-941
9/2, 6th Floor, Mahalakshmi Chambers, M.G Road, Bengaluru – 560 001
Dated 22.09.2017
Between :
Indus tower Limited,

No.12, Tower-D, Subramanya Arcade,
7th Floor, Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru – 560029 … Appellant
(By M/s.Kochhar & Co., Advocates)
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

O & M sub-division, MESCOM
Sorab sub-division, Sorab,
Shivamogga District.

O&M Circle, Shivamogga … Respondents
(R-1 by Sri H.V.Devaraj, Advocate).
****
1. The above said appeal is filed under clause 21.02 of KERC (CGRF &
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 against the orders dated 05.04.2107 passed
by CGRF, Shivamogga.
2017 -- Page 74 of 112

2
OMB/M/G/283/2017. Indus Tower Ltd., - vs – AEE, MESCOM & another.
________________________________________________________

respondent AEE. He has submitted the reply on 17.05.2017.
3. The case of the appellants is as follows :
(i) The appellant is a company, having its registered office at No.12,

Tower-D, Subramanya Arcade, 7th Floor, Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru. The appellant is the largest telecom owner company in
India and is engaged in the business of providing infrastructure for
mobile telecommunication services across India;
(ii) The appellant filed a complaint bearing number 3 of 2017

challenging the notice dated 01.12.2016 issued by the AEE
demanding payment of arrears of electricity charges purportedly
due from November 2010 to October 2016;
(iii) The appellant availed power connection from the respondent AEE
to its mobile tower bearing number S-5667 situated in Sorab Taluk,
Shimoga District and the respondent AEE sanctioned power of 8
KW capacity vide letter dated 26.07.2004;
(iv) At the request of the appellant Company additional power was

sanctioned vide letters dated 28.10.2009 and 10.08.2010;
(v) Respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 01.12.2016 demanding

payment of arrears of electricity charges purportedly due from
November 2010 to October 2016. In the Notice, the respondent
AEE contended that the bills raised for previous years was based
on wrong calculation after considering the connection under the
2017 -- Page 75 of 112

3
________________________________________________________
category 1 instead of 10. It is also been contended that AEE

realized the mistake subsequent to the inspection undertaken by
its officers. Based on the said inspection report, the AEE issued
Notice to the appellant demanding Rs.49,95,066.00 allegedly said
to be due between November 2010 to October 2016;
(vi) The appellant issued a reply dated 20.12.2016 refuting the

baseless assertions of the AEE and also requested to withdraw the
demand;
(vii) The respondent issued letter dated 21.12.2016 and 02.01.2017

threatening disconnection of electricity if the appellant fails to pay
the amount;
(viii) As per the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and the regulations of the
Electricity Code, 2004, the respondent cannot demand payment of
any amounts if the same is not claimed and is due beyond two
years;
(ix) As per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, the respondent cannot
demand payment of the amount if the same is not claimed within
two years from the date it falls due;
(x) The appellant paid Rs.5,00,000.00 under protest by way of

electronic transfer. Without giving any notice to the appellant the
respondent disconnected the power supply on January 19,2017 in
violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The
appellant again paid Rs.11,65,022.00 and further requested to
reconnect the power supply to the mobile tower. The power
connection was restored;
2017 -- Page 76 of 112

4
________________________________________________________
4. The respondent has submitted the reply as follows :

1)¸ÁÜªÀgÀ ¸ÀASÉå J¸ï-5667£ÉÃzÀPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ 28.08.2004 gÀ°è ªÉÄ: ¨sÁgÀw KgïmÉ¯ï
°«ÄmÉqï, ZÁªÀÄgÁd¥ÉÃmÉ, ¸ÉÆgÀ§ EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ°è 7.5 Q.ªÁå «zÀÄåvï
ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ UÀÄuÁAPÀ 01 JAzÀÄ
¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹ UÀuÁAPÀ 01 gÀ°èAiÉÄÃ ©®Äè DUÀÄwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ;
2) £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è ¸À.PÀ.¤.EA («) gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå 3049-51 ¢£ÁAPÀ
28.10.2009 gÀ°è CzÉÃ Dgï.Dgï.£ÀA.J¸ï-5667 PÉÌ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀÄvÉÛ 7 Q.ªÁå
«zÀÄåvï ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr MlÄÖ 15 Q.ªÁåUÉ «zÀÄåvï ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÄÝ, ºÁ° EgÀªÀÅ

«ÄÃlgï£À°èAiÉÄÃ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀªÀÄ¥sÀPÀð PÀ°à¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ;
3) ¥ÀÄ£À: ¸À.PÁ.¤. EA(«)¸ÉÆgÀ§ PÀbÉÃj DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå-1855-57 ¢£ÁAPÀ
10.08.2010 gÀ°è 24 QªÁå ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ¯ÉÆÃqï ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr MlÄÖ 39 Q.ªÁå
«zÀÄåvï ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è 50/5DA¥ïì ¹.n C¼ÀªÀr¹

¸ÁÜªÀgÀPÉÌ ºÁ° EgÀÄªÀ «ÄÃlgï£À°èAiÉÄÃ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðPÀ°à¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
4) ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («), J¯ï.n.gÉÃnAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, ªÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA,
¸ÁUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 13.10.2010 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ, ¦.¹. mÉ¸ïÖ ªÀiÁr F

PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
«ÄÃlgï ¹.n jÃrAUï UÀÄuÁAPÀ
3 Ph (5-20A) 50/5 60157 K-10
CAzÀgÉ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ UÀÄuÁAPÀ 10 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
2017 -- Page 77 of 112

5
________________________________________________________
5) £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è F ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ DzsÁgÁzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ UÀÄuÁAPÀ 10 JAzÀÄ

UÀtPÀAiÀÄAvÀæzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä
EzÀÝAvÀºÀ UÀÄuÁAPÀ 01 gÀ°èAiÉÄÃ ©®è£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAzÀgÉ GzÁºÀgÀuÉUÉ
10 AiÀÄÆ¤mï UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ G¥ÀºÉÆÃV¹ PÉÃªÀ® 1 AiÀÄÆ¤mïUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ
©®Äè ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G½zÀ 9 AiÀÄÆ¤mïUÀ½UÉ ©®Äè DVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. EzÀÄ
£ÀªÉA§gï 2010 jAzÀ CPÉÆÖÃ§gï 2016 gÀªÀgÉUÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 72 wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À

PÁ® F jÃw UÀÄuÁAPÀ ©lÄÖ ©®è£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
6) F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.12.2016 gÀ°è UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀ ¸ÀASÉå J¸ï-5667 PÉÌ
ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ UÀÄuÁAPÀ 10 gÀ°è ©®Äè DUÀzÉ EgÀÄªÀ
§UÉÎ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀ EAzsÀ£À ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ ªÉZÀÑ (FEC) ºÁUÀÆ «zÀÄåvï
vÉjUÉ (TAX) UÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ
01.12.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ®¨sÀåªÁUÀzÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÁÜªÀgÀPÉÌ EAzsÀ£À ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ ªÉZÀÑ
(FEC) ºÁUÀÆ «zÀÄåvï vÉjUÉ (TAX) ºÉÆgÀw¥Àr¹ DAiÀiÁ CªÀ¢üUÉ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀ
«zÀÄåvï zÀgÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀ AiÀÄÆ¤mïUÀ½UÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.49,95,066/-

¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ©®è£ÀÄß ¤qÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
7) F §UÉÎ UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.12.2016 gÀAzÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ
¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ 02 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üªÀgÉV£À ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ, G½zÀ

ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
8) ¸ÀzÀj UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.01.2017gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ
C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ 2 gÀ°è F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ »A§gÀºÀªÁV PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ

¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ vÁªÀÅ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÁÜªÀgÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀ AiÀÄÆ¤mïUÀ½UÉ
¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀzÀ°è zÁR°vÀ ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀÄzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
PÀtÛ¦à¤AzÁV UÀÄuÁAPÀ 10 gÀ §zÀ¯ÁV UÀÄuÁAPÀ 01 JAzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ¨ÉÃrPÉ

ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è DzÀAvÀºÀ vÀ¥ÀÄà ©®è£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ UÀÄuÁAPÀPÉÌ
¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁr DAiÀiÁ CªÀ¢üUÉ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀ «zÀÄåvï zÀgÀPÉÌ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ©®è£ÀÄß
2017 -- Page 78 of 112

6
________________________________________________________
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ F CªÀ¢üUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ zÀAqÀ CxÀªÁ §rØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ

¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁrgÀzÀ PÁgÀt F ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è
JA§ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÁæºÀPÀgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄvÁÛ S-5667 ¸ÁÜªÀgÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ
gÀÆ.49,95,066/- £ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ¨ÁzsÀå¸ÀÜgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj JA§ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£À§Äß

UÁæºÀPÀgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À¢zÀÝ°è
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¤®ÄUÀqÉUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ
§UÉÎ UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
9) F §UÉÎ UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.01.2017 gÀ°è gÀÆ.5,00,000 ªÀ£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ

¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G½zÀ ¨ÁQ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
10) £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£Á ¥ÀvÀæzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À
UÀqÀÄªÀÅ ªÀÄÄVzÀ PÁgÀt ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.01.2017 gÀ°è ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 11.30 ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ ¸ÀzÀj
¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ «zÀÄåvï C£ÀÄß ¤®ÄUÀqÉUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÉÃ ¢£À UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ
ªÀÄÄSÉÃ£À ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄÄSÉÃ£À C®à ªÉÆvÀÛ CAzÀgÉ gÀÆ.11,65,023/- C£ÀÄß

¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CzÉÃ ¢£À
¸ÁÜªÀgÀPÉÌ ªÀÄgÀÄ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð PÀ°à¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
11) PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀ EAzsÀ£À ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ ªÉZÀÑ (FEC) ºÁUÀÆ «zÀÄåvï
vÉgÉUÉ (Tax) UÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀåªÁzÀ PÁgÀt
C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-2 gÀ°è w½¹zÀ ©°è£À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹ Energy Charges ªÉÆvÀÛ
gÀÆ.49,95,066/- «zÀÄåvï vÉgÉUÉ ( Tax ) gÀÆ.2,80,979/- ºÁUÀÆ EAzsÀ£À
ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ ªÉZÀÑ (FEC) gÀÆ.5,989/- ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÉÆvÀÛ
gÀÆ.52,82,034/- UÀ½UÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.01.2017 gÀ°è UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»w
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.01.2017 gÀ°è
gÀÆ.5,00,000/- ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.01.2017 gÀ°è gÀÆ.11,65,023/- MlÄÖ
gÀÆ.16,65,023/- ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀÄÝ, E£ÀÄß½zÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.36,17,011/- £ÀÄß UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ

¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ¨ÁQ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
2017 -- Page 79 of 112

7
________________________________________________________
12) UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÁÜªÀgÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è PÉÃªÀ® 2 ªÀµÀð CªÀ¢üªÀgÉV£À
ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄÄSÉÃ£À w½¹zÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ “PÀArµÀ£ïì D¥sï ¸À¥ÉèöÊ J¯ÉQÖç¹n D¥sï r¹Öç§ÄµÀ£ï
¯ÉÊ¸É¤ì E£ï ¢ ¸ÉÖÃÃmï D¥ï PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 29.08(a) gÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀ°è

“«zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÝPÁÌV ªÀ¸ÀÆ¯ÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ «zÀÄåvï §¼ÀPÉ ±ÀÄ®ÌzÀ ¨ÁQ
JAzÀÄ ©°è£À°è ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV vÉÆÃj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀzÀ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ, CAvÀºÀ ªÉÆ§®UÀÄ
¨ÁQ JAzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ PÉèÃªÀÄÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®àlÖ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¯ÉÊ¸É£ÀÄìzÁgÀgÀÄ CAvÀºÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¨ÁQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÆ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è JAzÀÄ
¤AiÀÄªÀÄ«zÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ ©®è£ÀÄß rªÀiÁåAqï ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ©°è£À°è 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀUÉ

vÉÆÃj¸ÀzÉÃ EzÀÝ°è F ¤AiÀÄªÀÄªÀÅ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è UÀÄuÁAPÀ
10 ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀ §UÉÎ ©®è£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.12.2016 gÀ°è ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, D

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀªÁV ¨ÁQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©°è£À°è vÉÆÃj¹ UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ «vÀj¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀArµÀ£ïì D¥sï ¸À¥ÉèöÊ J¯ÉQÖç¹n D¥sï r¹Öç§ÄµÀ£ï ¯ÉÊ¸É¤ì
E£ï ¢ ¸ÉÖÃÃmï D¥ï PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 29.08(a) C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀzÉÃ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 29.03
C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-06 gÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÀUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÀ PÀrªÉÄ
¨ÉÃrPÉ gÀÆ.52,82,034/- ªÉÆvÀÛªÀÅ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »A¢£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁr,

¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV ©°è£À°è vÉÆÃj¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ ¨ÁQAiÀÄ®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ PÀrªÉÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÉÆvÀÛ
gÀÆ.52,82,034/- gÀ°è FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¥ÁªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.16,65,023/- £ÀÄß
ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ E£ÀÄß½zÀ ¨ÁQ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.36,17,011/- £ÀÄß UÁæºÀPÀgÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä

¨ÁzsÀå¸ÀÜgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
13) ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå Electricity Ombudsman £À°è Case No.OMB/B/G-
205/2015 dated 22.04.2015 gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹ ¸ÀzÀj DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ

¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, EzÀÄ zÉÆÃµÀ¥ÀÆjvÀ ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀzÀ »A§°èUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀÄÝ,
¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ “PÀArµÀ£ïì D¥sï ¸À¥ÉèöÊ J¯ÉQÖç¹n D¥sï r¹Öç§ÄµÀ£ï ¯ÉÊ¸É¤ì E£ï ¢
¸ÉÖÃÃmï D¥ï PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 27.03gÀ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ©®Äè ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä

UÀÄuÁAPÀ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ “PÀArµÀ£ïì
D¥sï ¸À¥ÉèöÊ J¯ÉQÖç¹n D¥sï r¹Öç§ÄµÀ£ï ¯ÉÊ¸É¤ì E£ï ¢ ¸É×Ãmï D¥ï PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ
2017 -- Page 80 of 112

8
________________________________________________________
µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 27.03 gÀ°è ¨ÁgÀzÉÃ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 29.03 gÀ°è §gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå Electricity
Ombudsman £À°è EzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ PÉÃ¹£À/¹.n. UÀÄuÁAPÀ gÀ»vÀ©®Äè DVgÀÄªÀ
§UÉÎ)«ZÁgÀuÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, Case No.OMB/B/G-182/2014/407 dated
08.09.2014 (M/s.Anriya Dwellington Apartment Assn. Dollors Colony Vs

AEE O & M C-6 sub-dvn. BESCOM, Mathikere, Bangalore) ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ
PÉÃ¹£À «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄÄ PÀÆ®APÀµÀªÁV £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀÝ PÉÃ¹£ÀAvÉAiÉÄÃ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAwªÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀªÁV F PÉÃ¹£À°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ
Respondent-2 CAzÀgÉ AEE, O & M, C-6 sub-dvn, BESCOM, Mathikere, CªÀgÀ
¥ÀgÀªÁVAiÉÄÃ DzÉÃ±À §A¢zÀÄÝ Appellant gÀªÀgÉÃ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀAvÀºÀ

ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ¨sÁzsÀå¸ÀÜgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
14) F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÉÃ¢PÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, CfðzÁgÀgÀ

zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁUÉÆ½¹zÉ.
15)J¸ï-5667PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ UÀÄuÁAPÀ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀ

¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÀÄ “PÀArµÀ£ïì D¥sï ¸À¥ÉèöÊ J¯ÉQÖç¹n D¥sï r¹Öç§ÄµÀ£ï ¯ÉÊ¸É¤ì
E£ï ¢ ¸ÉÖÃÃmï D¥ï PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 29.03gÀ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj µÀgÀwÛ£À C£ÀéAiÀÄ
¹.n.UÀÄuÁAPÀ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:1.12.2016gÀ°è ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ

rªÀiÁåAqï ªÀiÁr PÉèÃªÀiï ªÀiÁr vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁºÉAiÀiÁzÀ ©°è£À°è ¸ÀzÀj
¨ÁQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ ©®Äè ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ
29.08 (J) C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
5. In support of the case the appellant has submitted the following

citations and has contended as follows :
(i) K.N.Anilkuar – vs – Assistant Executive Engineer.
One of the issues discussed is whether Section 56(2) of Indian
Electricity Act, 2003 is applicable ?
“This particular section in the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, is a very
important limitation clause for the welfare of the licensee and
2017 -- Page 81 of 112

9
________________________________________________________
protection of the consumer. The limitation make energize and

vigilant the licensee to do their duty in time with due care. So, the
assessment made after two years of the alleged period is not
sustainable as per law.”
(ii) Shivala Bagh Bhaian Trust – vs – Punjab SEB;
(iii) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab.

Consumer complaint No.28 of 2008.
Authorities at fault. Meter of the plaintiff checked in 2007.
Demand notice issued in 2007 claiming dues from 1997. This claim
was not continuously recorded/billed. Section 56(2) applied and
the Commission held that the authorities cannot claim for arrears
which are not continuously billed beyond the time of 2 years.
“The logic behind 56(2) is simple that the consumer cannot be
burdened by a huge amount claimed for a decade. If there was
inaccuracy to record correct consumption the officers of the
respondents were liable to check the meter off and on”
(iv) Classic Developers and Anr - vs – Bangalore Electricity Supply

Company Limited & others reported in ILR 2012 Kar 1572;
Held that the non-obstanate clause in sub-section 2 of Section 56
makes it all mandatory for BESCOM to have recovered the moneys
due within the period of two years from the date when such
became first due (para 24).
(v) CESC Ltd., - vs – Shiva Glass Co., Ltd (2011 SCC Online Cal 3860);
“This Section starts with a non-obstantate clause and the use of
the word ‘shall’ in relation to disconnection of electricity is a
2017 -- Page 82 of 112

10
________________________________________________________
complete bar to disconnect such supply if such demands are not

recoverable in terms of Section 56(2) of the said Act. The sub-
section (2) of Section 56 is a new provision which did not find
place in Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This is a
provision of limitation for recovery of the dues by the licensee or
the generating company. This provision has over-riding effect and
clearly prohibits a licensing authority to realize any amount after
the period of two years from the date when such sum became first
due, unless such sum ahs been shown continuously as recoverable
as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee ‘shall
not’ disconnect the supply of electricity. The licensee can get rid
of this limitation provided the aid licensing company in the bills
sent to the consumer has continuously shown the said arrears
recoverable from him. If no such indication is there in the
subsequent bills regarding the arrears recoverable from the
consumer, then if two years period expires from the date when
such sum became first due and would not be recoverable being
bared by limitation”
(vi) Awadesh S.Pandey – vs – Tata Power Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2007
Bom 52;
This case was inclined on discussing more about 56(1). The

question of disconnection of electricity was more in the picture.
However, the Court upheld the decision of the Electricity
Ombudsman.
“We then come to the next issue as to whether the demand made
by respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Section 56 of
the Electricity Act. We have already narrated the facts. The
Electricity Ombudsman by his order of 18th July, 2006 held that the
2017 -- Page 83 of 112

11
________________________________________________________
respondent No.1 is entitled to recover past dues by correcting

multiplying factor. The question posed by the Electricity
Ombudsman to itself was whether the recovery could be made for
the entire period of 26 months i.e. for a period from October, 2003
to November, 2005 and that two belatedly in January 006. After
considering the various provisions including the regulations, the
Ombudsman held, only those charges for a period of two years
previous to the demand could be recovered and that the arrears
for the consumption in January 2004 became first due in February,
2004 as supplementary bill was raised in 2006 and these dues
having been within two years are recoverable under the provisions
of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
(vii) Order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Ombudsman in Preusse

India Pvt. Ltd., - vs – AEE 7 another;
The demand by the 1st respondent against the appellant is set

aside as time barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act,
2003.
(viii) Balasinor Nagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd., - vs – Babubhai Shankerlal

Pandya & others reported in (1987)1 SCC 606 (on interpretation of
Statutes)
Interpretation of Statutes: The rule that a Statute must be read as
a whole equally applies to a Section. Hence no part of a Section
can be omitted for interpretation.
(ix) Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd – vs – K.C.Subramanyam in MFA

2596/2007 dated 12.07.2012.
2017 -- Page 84 of 112

12
________________________________________________________
“The principle that the Statute must be read as a whole is equally

applicable to different parts of the same section. The section must
be construed as a whole or not one of the parts is a saving clause
or a proviso. It is an elementary rule that construction of a Section
is to be made of all the parts together. It is not permissible to omit
any part of it. The whole Section should be read together”.
6. The Advocate for the respondent has relied upon the Judgements of
the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.17225/2007 dated 05.11.2008 and also on the
Judgement of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court reported in AIR 2016
Jharkhand 2q016 and also the Judgement of the Ombudsman in OMB/H/G-
265/2006 and OMB/H/G-266/2016.
7. The Advocate for the respondent has filed the following

submissions/events.
(i) The sum and substance of this case is that the Respondent raised a
demand dated 01.12.2016, based on the report dated 24.11.2016,
submitted by the AEE, LT rating division notifying the Respondent,
the bills were raised to the installation bearing RR No.85567 for
the month of November 2010 to October 2016 instead of taking
the constant as only K-01 and therefore the supply company
issued a demand requiring the Appellant to pay the difference
amount payable to the supply company as against the demand
notice. The Appellant has filed its objections dated 20.12.2016,
admitting their liabilities and however disputed to pay that the
supply company has no right to raise the demand beyond two
years;
2017 -- Page 85 of 112

13
________________________________________________________
(ii) The supply Company considering the objections of the Appellant

has passed a detailed order against which the Appellant has filed a
complaint before the CGRF. The CGRF after holding enquiry has
held by its order dated 05.04.2017 that the supply company has
every right to recover the amount and has directed the Appellant
herein to pay the difference amount from November 2010 to up-
to date after deducting the amount already paid;
(iii) The case of the Appellant is that he is not disputing as to the

demand raised by the supply company only by taking Constant K-
01, instant of Constant K-10, but however the Appellant has raised
that under Section 56(2) of the electricity Act, 2013, the supply
company has no right to claim the amount beyond two years and
therefore for the purpose of appreciation of the dispute in the
above, the Respondent submits that the Clause 29.08 of
Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the
State of Karnataka provides for adjustments of erroneous bills
which reads as follows :
“29.08. At any time during verification of the consumer’s
account, if any short claims caused by erroneous billing are
noticed, the Consumer is liable to pay the difference. The
Licensee shall follow the procedure laid down under Clause
29.03 in such cases for preferring the supplemental claims.
However, the Licensee shall not recover any arrears after a
period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first
due, unless such sum has been shown continuously in the bill
as recoverable as arrears of the charges of electricity supplied.
56(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer,
2017 -- Page 86 of 112

14
________________________________________________________
under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two

years from the date when such sum became first due unless
such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as
arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall
not cut off the supply of the electricity”.
(iv) A conjoint reading of clause 29.08 of Conditions of Supply and

Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, no sum due from
any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the
period of two years from the date when such sum became first
due and therefore the Hon’ble Ombudsman has to consider
whether the date when such sum become first due. In the present
case first due starts from the date of knowledge, i.e. on
24.11.2016 when the L.T. rating division submitted the report
notifying to the respondent herein and therefore the respondent
herein has raised a demand on 01.12.2016 and therefore in all the
practical purpose the knowledge is the date such sum become first
due;
8. On perusal of both the oral and written submissions made by both

the parties the following issues emerge for consideration.
a). It is seen that the AEE has raised the bill immediately on receipt of
the report dated 24.11.2016 submitted by the AEE, LT rating division
notifying the Respondent, the bills were raised to the installation bearing RR
No.S 5567 for the month of November 2010 to October 2016 by taking the
constant as only K-01 instead of K-10. The technical flaw erupted in
reading of the meter had not come to notice of the AEE till 24.11.2016.
2017 -- Page 87 of 112

15
________________________________________________________
b). Immediately on receipt of the report from vigilance the AEE has
issued notice and acted as per procedure laid down under Regulation 29.03.
The consumer has not disputed regarding the consumption of power during
the period in question. Thus, the action of the AEE in raising the bill appears
to be in conformity with the observations made and orders passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.17225/2007 pertaining to
Ramanagar.
c). The relevant portion of the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in W.P.17225/2007 in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company – vs –
Ghousia College of Engineering of Ramanagar states as follows : (para 12).
“12. Clause 29.08 (a) reads as hereunder :
“At any time during verification of the consumer’s account, if any

short claims caused by erroneous billing are noticed, the Consumer is
liable to pay the difference. The Licensee shall follow the procedure
laid down under Clause 29.03 in such cases for preferring the
supplemental claims.
However, the Licensee shall not recover any arrears after a period of
2 years from the date when such sum became first due, unless such
sum has been shown continuously in the bill as recoverable as
arrears of the charges of electricity supplied.
In case of verification of the consumer’s account, shows excess
claims made in the past, the excess amount shall be credited to the
consumer’s account from the date of payment up to the date of
credit. This shall be done within one month from the pointing out the
excess claims. If for any reason there is delay in crediting the
2017 -- Page 88 of 112

16
________________________________________________________
amount to the consumer’s account, interest at 2% per month shall be

paid to the consumer for the period beyond two months.
Middle paragraph of Cl.29.08 (a) deals with the period of limitation

of 2 years. According to Mr.Gupta two years period has to be
reckoned on which date short claim was noticed by the petitioner
and even after noticing such short claim if the petitioner had slept
over the matter for more than two years, in such circumstances,
period of 2 years has to be restricted only from the date of demand
and so far as the present case is concerned, immediately after
noticing short claim based on the audit report, demand is raised as
per Annexure-a dated 23.06.2007. Therefore, he contends that
petitioner came to know of such short claim and within 2 years from
that date billing has been raised, therefore order passed by R-2 has
to be quashed. Per contra, Mr.Reddy contends that the same
paragraph has to be read holding that two years period has to be
reckoned only in respect of the short claim for a period of 2 years
from the date of issuance of demand and not earlier to that. If the
contention of R-1 is accepted in Cl. 29.03 itself, there would not have
been restriction in regard to the demand of a short claim. Cl. 29.08
has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of period of 2
years only from the date of knowledge and not from the date on
which the first sum became due. It is not in dispute that the short
claim was made known to the petitioner only when it received the
audit report. The same date has to be considered as the date on
which such sum became first due. There was no occasion for the
petitioner to raise a bill prior to the receipt of the audit report.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the period of two years
has to be counted from the day on which petitioner-company has
2017 -- Page 89 of 112

17
________________________________________________________
come to know of such short claim. This paragraph has to be

interpreted to restrict the period of two years if the petitioner-
company has slept over the matter even after two years after
noticing short claim or wrong classification. Therefore, point No.1
has to be answered in favour of the petitioner.
In the result, this petitioner is allowed. Order passed by R-2 as per

Annexure-F is hereby quashed”.
This order of the Hon’ble High Court was challenged by Ghousia College of
Engineering before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. 5
of 2009 (GM-KEB) and the Division Bench by its order dated 09.09.2015 has
dismissed the appeal.
d). Further, the text of the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand cited by the learned Advocate comes to the aid of the action of
the AEE in the instant case. The Judgement was reported in AIR 2016
Jharkhand in Sheo Shakti Cement Industries – vs – Jharkhand Urja Vikas
Nigam Limited. The Judgement reads as follows :
“Error in raising correct bills occurred due to difference in

Multiplying Factor in the old CTPT Metering Unit which was
removed and the new CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on
27.01.2011. The contention that the bill for the period between
29.01.2011 to 31.03.2014 were paid by the petitioner and thus,
supplementary bill dated 04.06.2014 is barred under Section 56 (2)
of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be accepted. The fact that
petitioner had consumed electricity supplied by respondent Nigam is
not disputed. The Installation Report dated 27.01.2011 discloses
2017 -- Page 90 of 112

18
________________________________________________________
the particulars of the CTPT Metering Unit which was installed

on2.01.2011 and those particulars are corroborated by the
Installation Report dated 31.01.2014 and therefore, the petitioner
cannot avoid payment for the electricity consumed by it. The
supplementary bill dated 13.05.2014 as corrected by bill dated
04.06.2014 raised on account of less Multiplying Factor is not
barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (para 7)”
9. In the light of the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and
after considering both oral and written submissions made by both the
parties it is seen that there are no vital and proper reasons to interfere with
the order of the CGRF and the proceedings of the AEE. Therefore the appeal
is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.N.Krishnaiah)
To
1. Sri H.N.Vasudevan, Advocate,M/s.Kochhar & Co.,Advocates, No.201,

Prestige Sigma, o.3, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Sri H.V.Devaraju, Advocate, No.39, Shop No.24, Mazzanine Floor,

A.S.V.N.V.Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El), O & M sub-division, MESCOM

Sorab sub-division, Sorab, Shivamogga District.
2017 -- Page 91 of 112

19
________________________________________________________
4. The Chairperson, CGRF, MESCOM, Office of the Superintending Engineer,

O&M Circle, Shivamogga.
.

9. Secretary, KERC
2017 -- Page 92 of 112

D-923

Dated :18.08.2017
Nanjappa Trust,
No.660, Kuvempu Road,
Shimoga
(RR No.HT-68) … Appellant
(By Sri M.A.Delvi, Advocate)
V/S

MESCOM, CSD-3,
Shimoga
(AEE in person)
2. The Chairperson,
C.G.R.F. MESCOM
O & M Circle,
Shivamogga … Respondents
*****
2017 -- Page 93 of 112

OMB/M/G-284/2017. Nanjappa Trust –vs – AEE & another 2

Regulations, 2004 against the orders dated 04.04.2017 passed by CGRF,
MESCOM, Shivamogga
.
2. The appellant has filed the appeal for a direction to the respondent to
(i) set aside the order passed by the CGRF, MESCOM, Shivamogga dated
4.4.2017; (2) direct to treat the installation HT-68 as falling under the Tariff
Schedule HT-2c(i); (iii) to bill the consumption of the Nursing College on pro-
rata basis and bill the resultant consumption under appropriate tariff; (d) to
refund the excess amount with interest as per S and D code 29.08(a).
3. The appellant has contended as follows :

(i) The appellant is a recognised as a Charitable Trust by the Income
Tax Department u/s 12(A) of the Income Tax Act. As per the tariff
order, the criteria to classify an installation as a charitable
institution or not, depends on production of the Certificate u/s
12(A) issued by the Income Tax Authorities. The subject institution
has been granted a Certificate under Section 12(A) which entitles it
for the tariff benefit (Annexure A to the appeal memo);
(ii) On an application made to the Licensee for sanction of supply of

power to an extent of 25 KVA, power was sanctioned (Annexure B
to the appeal memo). The Licensee considered and power was
sanctioned;
(iii) The Institute made an application for sanction of additional power

to an extent of 275 KVA on 09.07.2010 for the purpose of putting
2017 -- Page 94 of 112

up of a Hospital. The additional load was sanctioned on

03.03.2011 for establishing a Hospital based on the report of
jurisdictional Engineer. The sanction letter and remarks are
produced as Annexures C and D to the appeal memo;
(iv) It is relevant to mention that the classification and fixing up the

tariff of an installation falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Licensee and he was duty bound to fix the same judiciously. In
respect of the installation HT-68 while availing the additional load
of 275 KVA it was clearly shown as a Hospital and the field officer
report conclusively goes to show that the additional power was
intended for a Hospital. The Licensee by virtue of this report
ought to have classified the installation under HT-2(A) but
unfortunately the officer committed an error of judgement and
proceeded to wrongly classify under HT-2(B);
(v) The Licensee through a letter dated 23.04.2014 was appraised of

this misclassification and requested to reclassify the subject
installation appropriately under HT-2(C) (i) category by virtue of
the Certificate issued by the Income Tax Authorities under Section
12(A) of the Income Tax Act. The respondent acceding to the
request of re-classification, brought the installation under the
tariff schedule HT-2(C)(i) and started billing the installation under
HT-2C(i) tariff starting from May 2015. The reclassification of
category was communicated through a letter dated 07.04.2015
(Annexure E to the appeal memo);
2017 -- Page 95 of 112

(vi) By letter dated 25.08.2015 the Executive Engineer, Elecl,

MESCOM, informed that the tariff applied to the institution under
HT-2C(i) was withdrawn for the reason that a portion of the load is
used for education activity and hence the billing of the installation
under HT-2C(i) was discontinued. (Annexure F to the appeal
memo). This reclassification was done without serving a notice
and calling for objections against the proposed change. It
contravenes the provision of Regulation 3.04 of the Conditions of
Supply;
(vii) The complainant put-in concerted efforts to air his grievances in

reclassifying the installation including the corporate office of
MESCOM. The Chief Financial Officer, MESCOM, by a letter dated
15.09.2015 addressed to the Deputy Controller of Accounts,
Shivamogga called upon to submit his replies to the questions
raised by the appellant. The letter dated 15.09.2015 is produced
as Annexure G to the appeal memo. Although the officer
concerned called the appellant and held a meeting, the concerned
officer denied having conducted such a meeting. The respondent
was not interested in resolving the issue;
(viii) At the first instance it is on record that power was availed to an

extent of 25 KVA in the name of Nanjappa Trust for the purpose of
Amruth College of Nursing;
(ix) The CGRF although not properly constituted in accordance with

KERC directives in the matter, heard the issue at length and very
unfortunately passed an order dated 04.04.2017 rejecting the
2017 -- Page 96 of 112

complaint for reason that the power supply at the first instance
was availed towards Nanjappa Institute of Nursing Sciences. The
complainant’s claim for applying the appropriate tariff as HT-2C(i)
for hospital and hostel was rejected only on the ground that a
Nursing Institute is being run in the premises. Thus the order
suffers with incorrect appreciation of the tariff order, with legal
infirmities;
(x) It is on record that power at the first instance to an extent of 25

KVA was availed in the name of Nanjappa Trust for the purpose of
Amruth College of Nursing;
(xi) At the time of availing the additional power to an extent of 275

KVA it was specifically mentioned in the field report that the
additional load was for the specific purpose of running Hospital.
The report made by the jurisdictional AEE on 11.08.2010 and
produced as Annexure `D’ makes it manifestly clear that it is for
Hospital purposes only. This was within the knowledge of the
respondent and eversince the functioning of the Hospital;
(xii) The tariff order HT-2(C)(1) whereat a Charitable Institute runs a

Hospital is entitled to be made applicable along with Hostels.
Reading, the tariff order of this provision is a bit ambiguous with
regard to Educational Institutions run by charitable institute;
(xiii) Even agreeing for argument purposes, that an Educational

Institute to be specific the Nursing Institute, attracts a different
tariff. In that event the respondent could have granted a sub-
meter to be fixed to the college portion as per the provision and
2017 -- Page 97 of 112

applied the tariff schedule HT-2C(1) to the Hospital and the Hostel,
since the power used by the Nursing Institute being negligible;
(xiv) The CGRF failed to appreciate that Nursing Institute was an
integral part of the hospital and as such it should be classified
under HT-2(C(i) as per the tariff order;
(xv) The CGRF has failed to consider the arguments putforth, and has
not applied its mind to the issue as the same was not properly
constituted. There was an inherent legal infirmity, there being no
provision to nominate an Executive Engineer (Elecl) as a member
instead of a Deputy Controller of Accounts. Hence the order
suffers with legal infirmities;
4. The AEE has submitted the parawise remarks and has contended as
follows :
(i) The averment that M/s. Nanjappa Trust produced copy of the
Certificate issued by the Income Tax Department is not true. The
Certificate at Annexure A is not valid certificate registered under
12(A) of Income Tax Act. The tariff rates are governed and
envisaged by the Government from time to time. Initially, under
the name of Amruth College of Nursing Sciences the appellant
took electricity of 25 KVA on17.04.2009 and this was under HT-
2(B). Further, the appellant taken 275 KVA additional load in the
name of Nanjappa Trust, Amruth Nursing College on 03.03.2011.
The RR number of the installation, stands as it was, and the same
was continued. The installation so continued in HT-2(B) category
is as per rules and regulations. The appellant’s contention that the
2017 -- Page 98 of 112

installation ought to have been changed from HT-2(B) to HT-2(A)

as per then tariff order is not correct and it cannot be changed
when the consumer utilizing power not under the Charitable Trust;
(ii) The averment made in para No.2 of memorandum of appeal that

the Institute made an application to the Licensee (MESCOM) for
sanction of power supply to an extent of 25 KVA and the power
was sanctioned in the name of Educational Institution is correct
i.e. Amruth College which is permanently un-aided Educational
Institution as per Government Order;
(iii) The purpose of obtaining additional load to existing RR No.HT-68 is

for Hospital as mentioned in field report is true and correct;
(iv) The contention of the appellant as averred in para No.4 of

memorandum of appeal that the classification and fixing up the
licensee and he was duty bound to fix the same judiciously is quite
true and the respondent MESCOM has fixed rate of consumption
as per tariff rates as per the regulations. The appellant might have
shown that the installation HT-68, while availing the additional
load of 275 KVA was clearly shown as a Hospital and even the field
officer report conclusively goes to show the additional power was
intended for a Hospital. But this is not true state of affairs and the
Licensee (MESCOM) by virtue of this report cannot classify the
installation under HT-2(A). The respondent MESCOM never
committed an error of Judgement nor wrongly classified the
category under HT-2(B);
2017 -- Page 99 of 112

(v) The ground of appeal in para No.5 and 6 that, the respondent
acceding to the request for reclassification, brought the
installation under the tariff schedule HT-2 (C)(i) and started billing
under HT-2(C)(i) from May 2015. It is a fact that reclassification
was communicated through a letter dated 07.04.2015. But, it is
also quite true and apt that by a letter dated 25.08.2015, the
Executive Engineer, MESCOM, informed saying that,the tariff
applied to the institution under HT-2(C)(i) is being withdrawn for
the reasons that a part of the load is used for education activity
and hence the billing of the installation under HT-2(C)(i) was
discontinued;
(vi) The contention that an installation once classified under a

particular tariff cannot be re-classified without serving a notice on
the consumer and asking him to file appropriate objections against
the proposed change is not correct and tenable. The provision of
Regulation 3.04 provides right to Licensee to re-classify the tariff
categorized erroneously. The notice is required to be issued is
only for executing fresh agreement as per Regulations;
(vii) The allegation made in para No.8 of memorandum of appeal is not

correct. When the respondent acted in accordance with
regulations, question of arbitrary proceedings does not arises. It is
a fact that the Chief Financial Officer, MESCOM by a letter dated
15.09.2015 addressed to the Deputy Controller of Accounts,
Shivamogga called upon him to file his replies to the question
raised by the appellant. The concerned called the appellant to
attend the meeting in order to resolve the issue and in the
2017 -- Page 100 of 112

meeting the appellant reiterated regarding the issues raised in the

appeal. The appellant was reluctant to accept rules . Rather he
addressed a representation to KERC requesting to resolve the
issue. The Commission routed the representation to the
Ombudsman, who in turn by a communication dated 12.08.2016
addressed to the Chairperson, CGRF, advised to conduct
proceeding at their level and resolve the issue as per norms;
(viii) The allegation made in para No. 9 of the memorandum of appeal

that (a) the CGRF, although not properly constituted in accordance
with KERC directives in the matter, heard the issue at length and
very unfortunately passed an order dated 04.04.2017 rejecting the
complaint for reason that the power supply at the first instance
was availed towards Nanjappa Institute of Nursing Science, and (b)
the complaints claim for applying the appropriate tariff as HT-
2(C)(i) for hospital and hostel was rejected only on the ground that
a Nursing Institute is there in the premises and that the order
suffers with incorrect appreciation of the tariff order, with the
attending legal infirmities, etc, are not correct and be subjected to
proof are not correct and true;
(ix) At the first instance the power to an extent of 25 KVA was availed
in the name of Nanjappa Trust for the purpose of Amruth Nursing
College. But appellant’s contention that installation as for
whether it is charitable institution or not rests with the production
of the certificate under Section 12(A) which entitles the appellant’s
institution for the tariff benefit accruing by virtue of the grant of
certificate is not correct. It is submitted that the tariff rates
2017 -- Page 101 of 112

charges for consumption of electricity is purely governed as per

tariff rates envisaged by the Government from time to time.
Initially under the name of Amruth College of Nursing Science, the
appellant took electricity of 25 KVA on 17.04.2009 and this was
under HT-2(B). Further, the appellant taken 275 KVA additional
load on 03.03.2011 the RR number of the installation stands as it
was and the same was continued. The installation so continued in
HT-2(B) as per rules and regulations. But, the appellant contention
that the installation ought to have changed for HT-2(B) to HT-2(A)
and now HT-2C(i) is not correct as there was not tariff change
request along with production of valid 12-A certificate issued by
Income Tax Department at that time. Further, the tariff cannot be
changed as per the tariff rules, as installation stands in the name
of unaided educational institute;
(x) The contentions of the appellant as averred in para No.4 of

memorandum of appeal that the classification and fixing up the
Licensee and he was duty bound to fix the same judiciously is quite
true and the respondent MESCOM has fixed the rates of
consumption as per tariff rates as per the provisions of law. The
appellant might have shown that the installation HT-68 while
availing the additional load of 275 KVA was clearly shown as a
hospital and even the field officer report conclusively goes to show
that the additional power was intended for a hospital, but this is
true state of affairs and the Licensee (MESCOM) by virtue of this
report cannot classify the installation under HT-2(A). The
2017 -- Page 102 of 112

respondent MESCOM never committed an error of Judgement nor

wrongly classified under HT-2(B).
5. The learned Advocate for the appellant reiterated the facts and
grounds stated in the appeal memo. He further argued that service was
taken under Nanjappa Trust. The Income Tax authorities have given the
Certificate u/s 12-A of the Income Tax Act with effect from 16.01.1984. He
further argued that the Trust approached the Hon’ble High Court in the year
1993 but the Hon’ble High Court did not allow the claim. The appellant was
not aware of the concession given by the KERC in the year 1998. Further, he
argued that the Licensee should have given the benefit, since the Trust Deed
and other related documents were submitted to the AEE. The Licnesee
should have given the benefit under Regulation 3.04 of Conditions of Supply.
The Trust has filed IT returns every year to the Income Tax Department.
They extend the benefit to the deserving persons. He further argued that
eversince that the College run by the Trust is an integral part of the Hospital,
and major portion is utilised for the Hospital (25 KVA for College, 275 KVA for
Hospital).(HT-68).
6. The AEE reiterated the averments made in written memo and prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
7. The oral and written submissions made by both the parties and the
order of the CGRF is perused and considered.
8. It is noted that the appellant Institution has obtained power for

Amruth Nursing College and Hostel under HT-2(b). From the submission
made by both the parties, it becomes clear that the power is taken from the
said installation for both the Hospital and the Nursing College, which is an
2017 -- Page 103 of 112

unaided Institution. Hence the installation cannot be brought under HT-

2(C)(i) as per Rules.
9. The documents and submissions makes clear that the Licensee is

raising the bills as per the norms. The CGRF has considered all the issues and
passed the orders which is in conformity with the prevalent norms.
10. No vital issues are forthcoming to interfere with the order of the
CGRF. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.N. Krishnaiah)
To :
1. Sri M.A.Delvi, Advocate, No.8, 3rd Cross, Pottery Town,

2. Y.Nagaraja Setty, No.859/5, Nisarga, 1st Stage, 2nd Cross,

Shivakumaraswamy Extension, Davanagere – 577 005.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M), MESCOM, CSD-3, Shimoga

Engineer, O & M Circle, Shivamogga

2017 -- Page 104 of 112

1
D-924

Dated : 18.08.2017
Nanjappa Trust,
No.660, Kuvempu Road,
Shimoga
(RR No.HT-19) … Appellant
(By Sri M.A.Delvi, Advocate)
V/S

MESCOM, CSD-1,
Shimoga
(AEE in person)
2. The Chairperson,
C.G.R.F.
MESCOM
O & M Circle,
Shivamogga … Respondents
*****
2017 -- Page 105 of 112

2
OMB/M/G/-285/2017.Nanjappa Trust – vs – AEE & another

Regulations, 2004 against the orders dated 04.04.2017 passed by CGRF,
MESCOM, Shivamogga
.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal for a direction to the respondent to
apply appropriate tariff to the installation HT-19 as applicable to the
Hospitals run by a Charitable Institute and refund the amount with interest
as per S & D Code 29.08 (a). The appellant has contended as follows :
(i) The appellant availed power supply to an extent of 100 KVA under
the name of the Trust to put a Hospital and the same was serviced
during the year 1987. An additional load of 50 KVA was
subsequently availed and serviced on 06.09.2009. The Trust is
recognised as a charitable trust under Section 12-A of Income Tax
Act and has been granted exemption under Income Tax Act;
(ii) On several occasions in the past, the Trust had approached the
respondent No.1 and others to fix appropriate Tarff as applicable
to a charitable institute but the authorities failed to comply with
the request;
(iii) The Government in their tariff order during 1988 included

Hospitals run by charitable institutions under schedule HT-2(a).
But unfortunately Electricity Board did not extend the benefit to
the Hospital although the appellant had approached the Hon’ble
High Court in W.P.36726 in 1993 to direct the respondent KEB to
extend the benefit of HT-2(a) to the Hospital as the same is run by
a charitable institute. The Hon’ble High Court did not allow the
2017 -- Page 106 of 112

3
claim as it was held that Tariff HT2(a) is applicable only to

industrial and non-industrial purposes and there is no specific
inclusion of hospital run by (charitable institution). The Trust had
submitted the Trust Deed and the registration Certificate in Form
12(A) to MESCOM on 03.08.1993 itself, when it claimed for Tariff
under HT-2(a). These documents were also produced to Hon’ble
High Court in W.P.36726 wherein the respondent was KEB. The
Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court disallowing the claim was
pronounced on 16.05.1997. Just after that there was a revision of
Tariff, which was effective from 15th July 1998. In this Tariff, the
Hospitals run by Charitable Institutions are covered under HT-2(a).
The MESCOM has not applied this Tariff to the installation even
though they had the necessary documents to apply the
appropriate Tariff. This was brought to the notice of MESCOM in
letter dated 14.04.2014. After a prolonged correspondence for
one year, the KEB authorities have accepted its plea and applied
the Tariff HT-2(C)(i) from the billing month March 2015. It was
within the knowledge of the respondent that the installation is a
charitable one;
(iv) The appellant requested the respondent to apply appropriate tariff

to the subject installation with effect from July 1998 but no action
taken;
(v) A tariff order when made applicable to a particular category, it is

the duty of the Licensee to extend the benefit to the consumer.
Such charges are effected automatically. The respondent instead
of applying the tariff as contained in the tariff order sought
2017 -- Page 107 of 112

4
irrelevant details. It is evident that the respondent was reluctant

to extend the benefit accruing to the installation by virtue of the
Certificate granted under Section 12(A) of the Act. The erstwhile
entity had wrongly collected extra amount by denying the
consumer the category of tariff it attracted that was HT-2(a) since
July 1998;
(vi) The KERC created a new tariff HT-2(C)(1) by its order dated
15.07.1998 in respect of Hospitals run by a Charitable Trust. The
Tariff Schedule HT-2(C)(1) was made applicable among hospitals
run by charitable institutions also. The subject installation
provided to hospital automatically attracts the said tariff schedule.
But the respondent again made the appellant to run from pillar to
post and started to evade application of tariff under one pretext or
the other. The respondent after classifying the subject installation
HT-19 under HT-2(C)(1) with effect from 01.04.2015, reverted to
HT-2(C) (ii) with effect from January 2017 for no reason and
without following the procedure provided under Regulation 3.04
of the Conditions of Supply;
(vii) The service for installation HT-19 was availed during the year 1989
towards Hospital run by a Charitable Institute. At the time of
service there was no separate tariff category for hospitals. The
installation was billed under HT-2(b) at that time;
(viii) With KERC coming to effect from July 1998, it categorized the
hospitals under HT-2(a) tariff which was lesser than HT-2(b) tariff.
The installation attracts this tariff automatically. The respondents
2017 -- Page 108 of 112

5
are duty bound to classify the installation and apply the tariff
applicable to the category.
3 The AEE has furnished the reply on 31.05.2017 and has contended as
follows:
(i) Nanjappa Trust applied for 100 KVA power supply for Hospital
purpose and same was serviced in HT-1(b)2 tariff on 28.05.1987
RR No.HT-19 and subsequently additional 50 KVA was sanctioned
and serviced on 06.09.2009 as per the norms. The appellant Trust
has not requested for exemption by submitting any supporting
documents i.e. trust deed certification, etc, issued by the
Commissioner of Income Tax at the time of service of installation;
(ii) The appellant consumer has not approached the Department to fix
appropriate tariff till 2014. He requested to fix appropriate tariff
applicable to be charitable Institute only with effect from
14.04.2014;
(iii) The Government in their tariff order during 1998 included Hospital
run by charitable institutions under tariff schedule HT-2(a). The
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has not given any direction to
extend the benefit under HT-2(a) on the W.P.36726 in 1993 filed
by the appellant. The consumer has not brought to the notice of
the department to implement tariff under HT-2(a) by submitting
appropriate documents and hence benefit is not extended;
2017 -- Page 109 of 112

6
(iv) The consumer has not approached the Licensee for apply of
appropriate tariff to the subject installation;
(v) Since the Licensee did not have any relevant document (like 12-A
Certificate of Income Tax ) to bill such installation under HT-2(a) .
Hence, it is not possible to change the tariff automatically;
(vi) The tariff order 2014 created a new category HT-2 c(i) in respect of
the Hospital run by charitable trust. But the Licensee did not know
that the appellant Institution runs a charitable hospital. They
approached the department only on 14.04.2014 requesting to fix
the tariff applicable to a charitable Trust;
(vii) Since the appellant did not submit the relevant document to
Licensee reversal of tariff was not done;
(viii) The Clause 29.08 of S & D Code says that the amount can be
refunded to consumer only in case of erroneous billing;
(ix) The averments in para No.9 of the memorandum of appeal saying

that during 1998 to 2014 Licensee had collected huge sums by
way of application of higher tariff, etc, is not correct and not true.
4. At the time of hearing, the learned Advocate for the appellant

reiterated the facts and grounds stated in the appeal memo. He further
argued that for the appellant Trust in question, the Income Tax authorities
have given the Certificate u/s 12-A of the Income Tax Act with effect from
16.01.1984. He further argued that the Trust approached the Hon’ble High
Court in the year 1993. The appellant was not aware of the concession given
2017 -- Page 110 of 112

7
by the KERC in the year 1998. Further, he also argued that the Licensee
should have given the benefit under Regulation 3.04 of Conditions of Supply.
The Trust has filed IT returns every year to the Income Tax Department.
They extend the benefit to the deserving persons.
5. The AEE reiterated the averments made in his reply and prayed to
dismiss the appeal. The Licensee insisted for 12-A Certificate from the
appellant but they submitted 12-AA Certificate in 2014. The Licensee was
not aware that the appellant was a charitable Trust before that. Tariff
benefit can be extended only on production of 12-A Certificate and not 12-
AA Certificate.
6. The oral and written submissions made by both the parties are
perused and considered. Accordingly, the issue which arises for
consideration is “whether proceedings of CGRF are in order and in
conformity with the prevalent norms”.
7. It is seen that the appellant has submitted 12-(AA) Certificate issued

by Income Tax Authorities in respect of HT-19 on 22.08.2014. In pursuance
of this, the Licensee have changed the tariff category from HT-2C(2) to HT-
2C(1) with effect from 01.-04.2015. Again on 27.01.2017 the Licensee has
issued an order changing the category from HT 2(C) (1) to HT 2(C)(2) for the
reason that the consumer failed to submit 12-A Certificate which enables
them to get relief.
8. However, it is observed that the consumer has provided a

clarificatory Note issued by Income Tax Authority which says that 12-A(a)
Certificate can be considered as 12-A for claiming the relief as Charitable
Institution.
2017 -- Page 111 of 112

8
9. Considering all this, the CGRF have ordered to change the tariff
category from HT-2C(2) to HT-2(C)(1) with effect from 22.08.2014 and also
have directed to pay back the excess amount collected in respect of the said
period (barring the period from April 2015 to February 2017).
10. Thus, proceedings of the CGRF appear to be in order. Hence, the

appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.N. Krishnaiah)
To :
1. Sri M.A.Delvi, Advocate, No.8, 3rd Cross, Pottery Town,

2. Y.Nagaraja Setty, No.859/5, Nisarga, 1st Stage, 2nd Cross,

Shivakumaraswamy Extension, Davanagere – 577 005.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M), MESCOM, CSD-1, Shimoga

Engineer, O & M Circle, Shivamogga

2017 -- Page 112 of 112

2017 Merged

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2017 Merged

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

D-888

BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El),

2. The Chairperson, CGRF,

(R-1 by Sri Ramesh, AAO, BESCOM)

2017 -- Page 1 of 112

1. This is an appeal under clause 21.02 of KERC (CGRF & Ombudsman)

2. Letter dated 20.10.2016 was issued to the Assistant Executive

4. The appellant in his appeal has stated that –

(a) The installation bearing PN 21655 with sanctioned load of 3 KW was

2017 -- Page 2 of 112

Particulars of meter Particulars of the Particulars of the

Sl. No. of the meter 237670 41503

Manufacturer Aquaris Aquaris

Capacity 5/20 A 2.5/10 A

Initial reading 00 01787

7. On this notice, the Appellant approached the CGRF in complaint

8. The CGRF in its order dated 30.06.2016 has ordered as follows :

DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «vÀgÀuÉ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ 27.04 gÀ°è

2017 -- Page 3 of 112

2. ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÁæºÀPÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ¤ÃqÀ®Ä

3. Managing Directors of ESCOMs.

2017 -- Page 4 of 112

2017 -- Page 5 of 112

BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El),

(By Sri Rudresh AAO)

2. The Chairman & Superintending Engineer,

2017 -- Page 6 of 112

1. This is an appeal under clause 21.02 of KERC (CGRF & Ombudsman)

2. Comments were called vide letter dated 02.08.2016 from the

5. The appellant has further stated that on 28.09.2015 AAO of BESCOM

2017 -- Page 7 of 112

7. Considered the submissions made and accordingly the matter is

1. Sri L.N.Gangaraju, S/o L.R.Nagarajappa, No.E33/1, 1 st Main Road, 1st

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (El), O & M, N-4 sub-division,

3. The Chairman & Superintending Engineer, Consumer Grievance Redressal

2017 -- Page 8 of 112

BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

Sri Sharada Educational Trust (R),

(By Sri B.V.Venkata Ramu, Authorised Representative)

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer(El),

2017 -- Page 9 of 112

1. This is an appeal under clause 21.02 of KERC (CGRF & Ombudsman)

2. Comments were called vide letter dated 20.10.2016 from the

2017 -- Page 10 of 112

7. During the arguments, authorised representative for the appellant

8. The respondent AEE submitted that proceedings are initiated under

9. However, after arguments, the appellant requested for permission to

2017 -- Page 11 of 112

1. Sri B.V.Venkataramu, J.V.Electricals, No.905/3, 4th Main, 1st Cross,

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer(El), O&M, Sub-Division,

3. The Chairperson CGRF & Superintending Engineer, Chamundeshwari

4. Managing Directors of ESCOMs.

5. PS to Hon. Chairman, KERC

6. PS to Hon. Member (A), KERC

7. PS to Hon. Member (M), KERC

2017 -- Page 12 of 112

BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

(By Sri B.B.Deepak, Authorised Representative)

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer(El),

2017 -- Page 13 of 112

1. This is an appeal filed against the orders passed by Appellate Authority

2. Comments were called vide letter dated 03.11.2016.