- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15-DB WA No. 1391 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1391 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. MUKRAM ULLA KHAN S/O ASADULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.378/379, M.G. ROAD NEAR NEHRU PARK UDAYAGIRI MYSURU-570 019. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. JYOTHINAGAR SUB DIVISION MYSURU. 2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE) AND CESCOM CONSUMERS APPELLATE AUTHORITY WEST CIRCLE, BESCOM Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15-DB WA No. 1391 of 2024 BASAVESWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. UTTUR PADMAVATI SURESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9612/2020 (GM-KEB) PASSED BY SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.9612/2020 (GM-KEB) FILED BY THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15-DB WA No. 1391 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. A.V.Amarnathan for the appellant and learned advocate Smt. Uttur Padmavati Suresh for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,1961 is preferred by the original petitioner against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2024 passed by learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. In the petition, the petitioner challenged fourteen demand notices dated 29.04.2015 issued by respondent No.1-the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) whereby, the electric connection given to the petitioner's property was converted from LT-2 to LT-3 and billing was accordingly modified for the period concerned. Also prayed was to set aside the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority-respondent No.2 herein. 3.1. The petitioner had obtained fourteen different connections with different RR numbers in the category of LT-2 which was the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15-DB WA No. 1391 of 2024 connection for use of residential purpose. The case put forward by the petitioner in the petition was inter alia that the property/apartment was exclusively used for his employees and the petitioner had not been charging anything from the employees. It was stated by the petitioner that he was not using the building for any commercial purpose. It appears that respondent No.1 sent fourteen demand notices dated 29.04.2015 with the covering letter dated 29.04.2015 against all the 14 RR numbers whereby, the connection in the category LT-2(a) Tariff Schedule to LT-3 was converted to LT-3 Tariff Schedule. In other words, the connections were treated for commercial purpose instead of residential purpose. The case of the petitioner was, however, that he was using the building for residential purpose only. 3.2. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the petition, considered the aspect that the petitioner had the opportunity to file objections to the demand notices that the petitioner was furnished the inspection reports which showed that the building was used for commercial purpose. Not only that, it was noticed to be recorded that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the decision of the Competent Authority pursuant to the demand notices and the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15-DB WA No. 1391 of 2024 Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was running commercial enterprise in the premises. A finding was recorded that the said factum was clear from the display board also which was found outside the guest house. 4. In course of the hearing, learned advocate for the respondents took the Court to the relevant documents which were before learned Single Judge. 5. The documents and material include the website portal of the petitioner which reflected the details of tariff which was being charged for the petitioner for use of various apartments in the building. The tariff was fixed for single studio room, one bedroom apartment, two bedroom apartment and three bedroom apartment for night basis and on the basis of number of occupants. 5.1. The Appellate Authority also recorded a finding of fact that the use of the building was for commercial purpose by charging the tariff from the occupants. The case of the petitioner that the employees were given accommodation, stood negatived on facts. Learned Single Judge endorsed to the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15-DB WA No. 1391 of 2024 5.2. Thus a finding of fact was reached by the Competent Authority affirmed by learned Single Judge that the property was used for commercial purpose. The action on part of the respondents in converting the category from LT-2 to LT-3 could hardly be faulted. The tariff schedule of LT-3 includes the private guest house which was treated for commercial purposes. 6. In the aforesaid view, no error could be booked in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is meritless and the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications, as may be pending, would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. SD/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24