- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3023 WP No. 10135 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 10135 OF 2021 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED NO.8 SUB - DIVISON (BESCOM) D - GROUND LAYOUT SRIGANDHADA KAVALU BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT V PADMAVATHI W/O M NARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO. 28 GF-1 KOUNDINYA APRTMENT 3RD TEMPLE ROAD 15TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003. 2. THE CHAIRMAN CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM (CGRF) BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT WEST CIRCLE OFFICE Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3023 WP No. 10135 of 2021 BESCOM CA SITE NO.5 WEST OF CHORD ROAD III STAGE BHIMAJYOTHI HSBC LAYOUT NEXT TO CHORD ROAD HOSPITAL BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079. 3. THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN NO. 16-C-1 MILLER TANK BED AREA BEHIND JAIN HOSPITAL VASANTHA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AKHIL S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. APARAJITHA ARIGA K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO ANNX-L DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO. OMB/B/G 345/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE R-3; QUASH THE ANNX-L, DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.OMB/B/G-345/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE R-3. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3023 WP No. 10135 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the third respondent - Electricity Ombudsman. In terms of the order passed by the third respondent, appeal filed by the first respondent is partly allowed with a direction to the petitioner, consequently the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Committee is set aside. The first respondent had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum challenging the demand made by the petitioner in terms of the demand dated 12.03.2018. 3. Certain facts are admitted. The first respondent is running a Hospital and availed HT-2(B) connection with effect from 03.04.2012. The electricity was supplied to the said premises treating the premises a Hospital. The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) introduced different Tariff orders vide order dated 21.03.2014 where hospitals are broadly divided into two categories namely Private Hospital and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3023 WP No. 10135 of 2021 Government Hospital. For the private Hospital, electricity supply was categorized under HT-2C(ii) and for the Government Hospital it was categorized under HT- 2C(i). 4. It is also noticed that in the year 2017 KERC prescribed different Tariffs for the Diagnostic Centre. The petitioner claims that inspection was made in the year 2018 and it is noticed that the first respondent was running a Diagnostic Centre (with electricity connection and Tariff applicable to the private hospital). Based on the inspection, the petitioner issued demand for the Tariff to be paid with effect from 01.06.2015 to 01.03.2018 on the premise that Tariff payable to the Diagnostic Centre is not paid for the afore mentioned date. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the complaint was rejected. The appeal filed before the Ombudsman is allowed in part. The ombudsman held that the petitioner is entitled to be charged under different Tariffs applicable to Diagnostic Centre with effect from 01.07.2018 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3023 WP No. 10135 of 2021 not prior. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that electricity charges payable to the Diagnostic Centre is much more than the electricity payable to the hospital having H-2C(ii) category. Thus he would contend that the third respondent - Ombudsman erred in allowing the appeal in part and setting aside the order passed by the CGRF. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that higher Tariff for electricity charges was introduced for the first time in the year 2017 and till then the first respondent's establishment came under the category of a private hospital and fee payable by the private hospital was paid till 2017. Thus he would contend that the Ombudsman is justified in passing the order. 8. This Court has considered the contention raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. As could be noticed there is no dispute that higher Tariffs for Diagnostic Centre was applied for the first time in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3023 WP No. 10135 of 2021 the year 2017. Till then the Diagnostic Centre was not categorized under different category. The Tariff payable was same as for the category 'Hospital'. Since the new Tariff was made applicable to the Diagnostic Centre with effect from 01.04.2017, the petitioner can demand Tariff payable for a Diagnostic Centre with effect from the date of new Tariff i.e. 01.04.2017. In this view of the matter, the authority-third respondent is justified in restricting the demand with effect from 01.04.2017 till the date of inspection. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with this order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SA ct:sr