IN liE EIIGEL COURT OF ECARNATAKA AT BANGALORi 1 IjATEi TillS TilE l8Tt{ DAY OF JUNE, 1998 BtFOR t TM E iiON’BLE MF JUSTICE H.L.LWrTU WRIT PETITP3N i. 3S/1998 ll.V. Chandrakumar s/o. u.G. Vishwanath, aged thout 33 years, r/o. 2578, Taluk Office Road, Dod dabal Lapur, Bangalore aural dist. ,,, PWITIONEP (By Sri R irurajan, MW.) 1. Karnataka Electricity Board, A statutory Board, having its registereu office at Cauvery lELiavan, Bangalore — 9, rtp. by its Sec retai:. 2. Assistant EXecutive Engine er—E lectricals, Doddaballpur 0 & M Sub—0 iv is ion, Karnataka Electricity Board, Doddthallapur, Bangalore Rural dist. ,,, EL SPOND1TS (By Sri N.K. Gupta, Adv.) This writ petition is filed under rtiele 22b of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash annexure B dated 05.02,1998 u’ietc. This writ petition coming on for Orders this day, tie Court made the following; ORDER The matter is listed in the orders list.8y consent of learned counsel for the parties to the us, it is taken up for final hering. 2. Petitioner is a consumer of electrical eneigy supplied by the respondent Board, He has two power connections in his premises bearing PR No.2397. 3. Respondent Board had issued a back billing demand int lia claiming a sum of Rs.15,652/— payable by the petitioner. Aggrieved L74 !- by that demand, petitioner had an appeal and also the second appeal before the authorities as provided under the regulations. Thereafter the Board had issued a revised back billing demand by its notice dated 20.05.1994 interalia claiming an amount of Rs.12,374.15/—. Aggrieved by the same petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion. This Court by its order dated 04.11.1997 was pleased to allow the petition and was further pleased to make the following observations: U5 In view of the above, this petition is allowed and Annexure-’C’ is quashed and the Second Respondent is directed to comply with the order of the First Appellate Authority and the order of this Court in W.P. No. 16549/94, by presenting the revised back—billing claim, =3= giving particulars of the backbilling charges so that petitioner can either point out mistakes, if any, in calculations or pay the amount as demanded’ 4 The Local Officer after considering the orders made by the Appellate Authority and the directions issued by this Court in WP. 16549/1994 and also taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner dated 31O1997 has once again recalculated the back billing demand payable by the petitioner by his order dated 5..21998.Aggrieved by this orderpetitioner is before this S. Sri Gururajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends before this court that the Local Officer while calculating the back billing charges has not taken into consideration the lengthy objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore, submits that the impugned demand raised by the Local Officer is wholly incorrect and invalid. 6Sri NJCGupta, learned counsel appearing for the Board sought to justify the impugned demand, 7. After disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner and after disposal of the writ =4 = petitions filed by the petitioner before this courts it was expected of the Local Officer to recalculate the back billing charges payable by the petitioner taking into consideration the decision made by the Appellate Authority and also the objections so filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order made by the respondents authorities does not indicate that the Local Officer has taken into consideration any one of the objections filed by the petitioner In my view, it was expected of the Local Officer to have considered the objections filed by the petitioner and thereafter should have recalculated the back billing charges payable by the petitioner. Since the same has riot been done by the Local Officer, the impugned order made by him requires to be set aside by this court. 8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned order dated 5,2l998 issued by the Local Officer is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Local Officer for fresh disposal in accordance with law and pass fresh orders after considering the objections filed by the petitioner dated 31O.1997. 9. Petitioner also assert in the petition that the respondent Boards after passing the impugned order dated 5,2.1998 have disconnected the S = power supply to the installation of the petitjoner if that is so, in the lntrest of both the parties, a direction requires to be issued to them to reconnect the electrical energy to the petitioner’s installation subject to petitioner depositing a sum of Rs,15,000,’- within two weeks from todays if such deposit is made by the petitioner within two weeks, the Local Officer would not only reconnect the electrical energy to the petitjoner’ installation but also consider the objections filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as posjb1e, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this court’s order. lOt4ith these observations, writ petition is disposed off Ordered accordingjy I sat-