- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40601-DB WA No. 922 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 922 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SRI.SANATH KUMAR SHETTY S/O OF DR SOMESH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT AT G-1 CASA GRANDE MALL STURROCK ROAD FALNIR, MANGALORE 575001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. OJASWI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ATTAVARA, MANGALURU 575001 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), ATTAVARA SUB DIVISION, MESCOM, MANGALURU 575001 3. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AUTHORITY LIMITED APPELLATE AUTHORITY, REVENUE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CESC, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40601-DB WA No. 922 of 2025 MYSURU 570017 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO WP No-19895/2022 ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-19895/2022 (GM-KEB) (IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) 1. The present intra court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by the writ petitioner calling in question the judgment dated 24.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.19895/2022 (GM-KEB), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is stated to be the owner of a residential apartment known as 'Home Space Apartment' comprising 11 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40601-DB WA No. 922 of 2025 residential units in Mangalore. The electricity connection obtained for the said building is for residential use, which attracts LT2 tariff. It was alleged that the appellant used the building as a 'service apartments' and hence, the said use attracts LT3 tariff. Notices were issued to the appellant demanding LT3 electricity charges. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the first respondent and the appellant participated in the enquiry conducted by the second respondent - Assistant Executive Engineer. Vide order dated 11.10.2021, the second respondent confirmed that the electrical installations of the appellant (3 installations i.e., No.MSJEH 42638; 101, for the period 13-09-2013 to 13-09-2014; No.MSJEH 42643; 102, for the period 01-07-2013 to 31-12-2014; and No.MSJEH 42648; 503, for the period 04-09-2014 to 03-12- 2014) have been utilized for commercial purposes and the appellant was required to pay a total sum of Rs.16,23,656/-. The appeal filed by the appellant before the third respondent, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the second respondent, was dismissed vide the order dated 22.7.2022. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred WP.No.19895/2022, which was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40601-DB WA No. 922 of 2025 dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2025, being aggrieved by which, the present appeal is filed. 3. The primary contention put forth by the appellant in the present appeal is that the course adopted by the Learned Single Judge in requiring the appellant/petitioner to file an affidavit during the course of the proceedings is erroneous. It is contented that the appellant had placed various materials, including lease deeds, to indicate that the premises was being utilized for residential purpose. That the premises in question was occupied by the employees of the appellant, when the appellant was executing a construction contract. 4. It is forthcoming that there was a video recording of the vigilance raid that was conducted in the premises of the appellant, which indicated that the said premises was being used as a 'service apartment'. In the said video recording, various sign boards, which indicated that the said apartments were being let out, were noticed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The reliance placed by the appellant on various lease agreements (which were exceeding periods of 11 months) were disbelieved by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40601-DB WA No. 922 of 2025 lease deeds were insufficiently stamped as also unregistered. It is also noticed that the lessor in the lease deeds was described as M/s.SKS Group, a Registered Partnership Firm, whereas the appellant/petitioner in the present case is an individual. 6. It is pertinent to note here that apart from producing the lease deeds, which are not for the entire period that the use and occupation of the premises for commercial purposes is alleged, the appellant has not produced any material on record to indicate receipt of rent, nor examined any tenants. 7. The learned Single Judge, while noticing the contention of the appellant that he had provided accommodation (free of cost) to engineers working for the project of M/s SKS Group, Mangaluru, has disbelieved the said contention by also noticing that the lease agreements could not have been executed by SKS Group since they never owned the premises. It is also pertinent to note here that with regard to the contention of the appellant that he had provided accommodation free of cost, no other material like, the names of the employees to whom the said accommodation was provided, details of their employment, etc., have been produced by the appellant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40601-DB WA No. 922 of 2025 8. Admittedly, the appellant does not dispute the photographs and video recording taken at the time of inspection by the officials of the respondents. The said photographs and video recording have been appropriately appreciated by the learned Single Judge to notice that the premises in question have been used for commercial purposes. 9. The appellate authority has also noticed that various documents have been seized from the premises of the appellant, which clearly demonstrate that the same was being used as a 'service apartment'. The appellate authority, after appreciating the material on record, has noticed that the appellant has failed to produce evidence/documents to establish that he is not unauthorisedly using the electricity for commercial use by taking sanction for residential purposes. 10. The original authority - second respondent in its order dated 11.10.2021 has, after noticing the material on record including the inspection carried out by the vigilance squad also noticed that at the time of inspection the Supervisor had stated that the apartments were given on a daily rent basis at Rs.4,000/- per day since the year 2006, for about seven years. The original authority - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40601-DB WA No. 922 of 2025 has also noticed the statements of the occupants of the said apartments who have clearly deposed that they were staying for a day during their visit to Mangaluru. It is forthcoming that the original authority, after appreciating the material on record, has held that the premises in question was being used for commercial purposes while the electricity connection was taken for residential purposes. Hence, a total demand of Rs.16,23,656/- was raised. After deducting the sum of Rs.11,87,426/- deposited by the appellant during the period of litigation, the appellant was called upon to pay the balance sum of Rs.4,36,239/- within thirty days. 11. The appellate authority, upon re-appreciation of the material on record has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the order passed by the original authority. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the various material on record has, refused to interfere with the findings recorded by the original authority and the appellate authority. 12. The reliance placed by the appellant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Electricity Supply Co.of Orissa Ltd., v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill1 to contend 1 (2012) 2 SCC 108 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40601-DB WA No. 922 of 2025 that the learned Single Judge has exceeded his authority will not aid the case of the appellant. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary one, which should be exercised with circumspection in exceptional cases. The said judgment was rendered in the context of availability of a statutory remedy. 13. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order of the original authority, appellate authority or the learned Single Judge is in any manner erroneous; is contrary to any specific material on record, or is otherwise liable to be interfered with in the present appeal. 14. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 15. Pending IAs., stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS/ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29s