4 i Tti i1d OUtT Oi ILK 2 BNLO i) i’di id 2 JiX OF iUi 1998 LiA LiOd’ &t,JUiI d,, TU t11 i1iiON LO.15662/1998 aradaraj nterprises A partner shi? firm having its office at N, 2A-LL1 Phase Kumba1goi I ndustrial Area Kengeri, .angaIore reptd. by its Partner. •••. Petijjner. ( 8 y ri M.i.N. Reddy, Adv. for R, Gururajan) 1. Karnaaka ‘lectricity board having it 5 offices at Cauvery Bhavan B’lore-9 rept$, bj its becretary. 2. 4sst. xecutive ngineer 1ectricais, Karriataca .lectricity boari, w-6 ub-A)i bydtarayaflapUra .aflgalore. .... Respondents. (by ri i.K. Gupta, dv.) l 1 his W.P. is filed under Art,226 of the Can. stitution of India, praying to quash Annexure C dated 22.÷.i98, etc. This v.P. coming on for Pre1minary Hearing this day, the Court made the following: 4 . .2. . Petitioner is a small scale industry and a consumer of power supplied by the Karriataka .lectricity board. Aggrieved by the demand raised by the respondents interalia directing the petitioner to pay off the backbilling charges by the notice dated 22.f.1998, petitioner is before this Court, 2. Regulations of the Board provides for an appeal remedy. That remedy is an effective and also an efficacious remedy. Witkut exhausting the alternate, effective arid efficacious remedy proviclea uri.ier the Regulatior itself, in my view, petitioner could not have approached this Court by-passing the appeal remedy. 3. dowever, bri Reddy, learned ‘ounsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that ne was not served with any notice at any point of time, If that is so, petitioner is directed to approach the respondent-authorities asking them to indicate how they have arrived at amounts which they are demanding in the noce dated 22.+.1998. Withøut doing so, in my view, petitioner could not have approached this Court, V • .3. • . For the reasor stated, I decIir to entertain this writ petition, ecordng1y, it is rejected. JUDGE ‘ cotipt I4/O2O6 1998