- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6603 WP No. 3539 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 3539 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED, RR NO. CDPHT445, NO.196C, 3RD PHASE, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHANDAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 099, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR VARUN AGARWAL, COMPANY MASTER DATA REGISTRATION NO.128420. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A S ANIRUDDHA, ADV. FOR SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) BESCOM CHANDAPURA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 099. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM VIGILANCE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/05/2017 BEARING NO.1501-503 IN APPEAL NO. RA 59/16-17 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO.MUPRAVYA (HAEVA)/ PRAVYA(COM)UPRAVYA(COM)/SAPRAVYA (COM-1)/ VYA(COM)- Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6603 WP No. 3539 of 2024 2/BISI-22/2222/22-23 AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. b) QUASH THE LETTER DATED 06/01/2024 ISSUED BY R2 (ANNEXURE-M), BEARING NO. SA.KAA.NI.AA(VI)/SA.LE/HISA/1927 DTD. 06/01/2024 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, AS BEIN ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority. The petition is also filed to quash the letter dated 06.01.2024 wherein the request of the petitioner to recall the order of the Appellate Authority is rejected. 2. A writ of mandamus is also sought to restore the electricity connection to the petitioner's plant and petitioner has also sought refund of Rs.1,98,814/- being 50% of the amount in deposit before the Appellate Authority with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. 4. Petitioner is running Ready Mix Concrete plant. Petitioner was required to pay tariff under HT2(a) up to 01.04.2017. Thereafter, petitioner was required to pay tariff - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6603 WP No. 3539 of 2024 under HT2(b) w.e.f. 01.04.2017. Admittedly, HT2(b) tariff is higher than HT2(a) tariff. 5. Respondent No.2 demanded tariff from the petitioner by applying HT2(b) tariff even prior to 01.04.2017. This demand was questioned by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority in terms of the order dated 03.05.2017 dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner is liable to pay tariff under HT2(b) category. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for a different plant belonging to the petitioner which was also covered under HT2(a) tariff, a higher demand was made by the respondents and the same was called in question by the petitioner and the matter came to this Court in Writ Petition No.5907/2018 and the co-ordinate bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 19.02.2018 has held that HT2(b) tariff is applicable only w.e.f.01.04.2017 and not earlier. Accordingly, the demand for higher tariff was quashed. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the co-ordinate bench of this Court has taken a view that petitioner is not liable to pay HT2(b) tariff prior to 01.04.2017, he made a request in 2022 to 2nd respondent calling upon 2nd - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6603 WP No. 3539 of 2024 respondent to recall the order vide letter passed by the Appellate Authority. Respondent No.2 refused to recall the order and issued endorsement dated 06.01.2024. Learned counsel further submits that appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed in 2017 was not communicated till 2023 and only after rejection of the application to recall the order, the present petition is filed and the delay in filing the writ petition is explained. 8. Learned counsel would further contend that since the petitioner in this case is also entitled to the benefit of the order passed in Writ Petition No.5907/2018, and the order of the Appellate Authority has to be quashed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and though the order is passed in the year 2017, petitioner has not chosen to file a writ petition challenging the said order. On the other hand, in the year 2023, he has made untenable claim to recall the order passed by the Appellate Authority and 2nd respondent is justified in issuing an endorsement that the order of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6603 WP No. 3539 of 2024 Appellate Authority cannot be recalled by 2nd respondent. So far as the tariff applicable to the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents would fairly submit that HT2(b) tariff would be applicable only w.e.f.01.04.2017 and not for prior consumption of electricity in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5907/2018. 10. There is no dispute over the fact that petitioner in both cases are one and the same and two different plants were operated by the same petitioner. This being the position, respondents cannot make a claim that petitioner is liable to pay HT2(b) tariff for a period earlier to 01.04.2017. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority at Annexure - A is quashed. 11. It is also noticed that petitioner has deposited Rs.1,98,814/- towards 50% of statutory deposit. It is also noticed that the order dismissing the appeal was operating in favour of the respondents. As such the respondents were under no obligation to refund the amount till the said order is set-aside. Order is set-aside today. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to interest on the said amount. At the same time, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6603 WP No. 3539 of 2024 contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the amount should remain with the respondents and would be adjusted to future charges should be rejected. The amount in deposit should be refunded to the petitioner. In case, the amount is not refunded to the petitioner within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, else the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from today till actual payment. 12. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The orders of the respondent No.1/Appellate Authority in Appeal No.RA 59/16-17 dated 03.05.2017 vide Annexure 'A' and that of Assistant Executive Engineer bearing No.Sa.Ka.Ne.Aa/(v)/Sa.Le.Hesa/1927 dated 06.01.2024 vide 'M' are quashed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60