=1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KATNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SRI H L. DATTU WRIT PETITION NUMBER:38268/1997 BETWEEN: Smt Sharadarqma w/o N Narasimhaiah 60 years, NoS, 7th cross, Yellamma Temple street, Nagadi road ,Bangalore. •PETITIONER (BY SRI G.A.K. GOWDA ADVOCATE) AND: 1. Karnataka Electricity Board, Statutory Board, having its Office at Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore 2 Superintending Engineer(Elec,) and Appellate Authority, Karnataka Electricity Board, KM Circle, Bangalore, 3, Asst,Executive Engineer,(Elec ) W3 Sub—Division Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.K. GUPTA ADVOCATE) This petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash vide Annexure C dated 810.199/ by R-? etc, Thic petition -oming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following: ORDER Rult&, Heard Pha learnad counel for th parties to the lis. S =2 = 2. Pctitioner is running a flour mill SV 3 0 having power connection 4e RR NoJ3P 1367/P2/331.She claims that she is regular in payment of the bills raised by the respondents for having consumed electrical energy 3. Petitioner is constrained to approach this court in view of the orders made by the appellate authority in ippeal NoSEE/BC/Appea1II/C 12977-13OOO dated 81O1997. Respondents had raised a demand against the tenant of the premises where the respondents had installed the meter bearing the aforesaid RR number. The demand raised by the respondents authorities was the subject matter of the appeal before the appellate authority, but that appeal was filed by the tenant. The appellate authority notices that the owner of the premises in whose name the installation stands has not approached him, but however, decides the appeal on merits. Thereafter, the demand has been raised by the respondents by their demand notices dated l3,31997 and 1141997, Immediately after the said demands were raised by the respondents, petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs12,O37/— with 3rd respondent, Inspite of such deposit, ‘., Ai j. respondents authorities F not restored the power supply to the petitioner’s installation. 3. The installation stands in the name of te. the petitioner and if any person is aggrieved by ‘AL- the de4nand raised by the respondents is only the petitioner and nobody else. The appellate authority could not have decided the appeal preferred by the tenant of the premises against the demand raised by the respondents authorities. On that sole ground, the appellate authority could have rejected the appeal but without doing so, the appellate authority decided the appeal on merits. In my view, the orders made by the appellate authority is unsustainable. Accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. 4, For the reasons stated, petition is allowed. The order made by the appellate authority is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal as provided under the Regulations of the Board against the demand raised by the respondents authorities dated 13.3,1997 and 11 3.1997 within two months from today. The appellate authority shall not insist upon deposit of 50% of the demand raised since the petitioner has already paid that amount vide Receipt No.05162 dated 26.3.1997. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within the time grnated by this court, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits without reference to the period of limitation. Further a direction is issued to the Board to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s installation vide RR NoJ43P 1367/P2/33j within one week from today, 5. with these observations petition is disposed off, Ordered accod I CSG