- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 23504 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: M/s NANJAPPA TRUST, NO 660 KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIMOGGA 577201, REP HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, MR D G BENAKAPPA, S/O LATE D G NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.660, KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIMOGGA - 577 201. REGISTERED BY TRUST DEED. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., (MESCOM), WHOLLY OWNED BY THE GOVT OF KARNATAKA, HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT MESCOM BHAVAN KAVOOR CROSS ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALURU 575 004, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NO 9/2 6TH FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. 3. CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM MESCOM, OFFICE OF SE, O AND M CIRCLE, SARVAGNA RASTE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, SHIMOGGA - 577 201, REP BY SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) O AND M CSD- 3 MESCOM, GOOD LUCK CIRCLE, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 NEAR NAGA SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT, SHIMOGGA 577 205. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 IN CASE NO.OMB/M/G-285/2017 PASSED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-X) AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS APPEAL.DIRECT THE R1 TO REFUND TO THE PETITIONER RS.57,26,506/- BEING THE EXCESS AMOUNT COLLECTED TOWARDS ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN UNITS DUE TO APPLICATION OF THE WRONG TARIFF AND RS.3,09,750/- TOWARDS DEMAND CHARGES, AGGREGATING TO RS.60,36,256/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 2 PERCENT PER MONTH AS PER CLAUSE 29.08(a) OF THE CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY OF THE DISTRIBUTION LICENSES IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA FORM JULY 1998 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS CONNECTION HT-19. DIRECT THE R1 TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,32,446/- IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R3. AWARD THE COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed for following reliefs: i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Impugned Order dated 16.03.2022 in case No. OMB/M/G-285/2017 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 'X') and allow the Petitioner's appeal; (ii) consequently, direct Respondent No. 1 to refund to the Petitioner Rs.57,26,506/- being the excess amount collected towards electricity consumption in units due to application of the wrong Tariff and Rs.3,09,750/- towards demand charges, aggregating to Rs.60,36,256/- together with interest at the rate of 2% per month as per clause - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 29.08(a) of Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka from July 1998 in respect of the Petitioner's connection HT-19; (iii) direct Respondent No.1 to pay to the Petitioner the amount of Rs.3,32,466/- in compliance of the order passed by Respondent No.3." 2. Sri Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust running charitable hospitals since 1987. For said purposes petitioner had obtained 100KV power supply from respondents. Tariff applied to petitioner was HT-2(b). In year 2009, it had obtained additional 50KV power supply. On 03.08.1993, it filed application stating that it was classified as charitable hospital under Section 12(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('Act' for short) and sought concessional Tariff under HT 2(a). Request was rejected as per order at Annexure-E on 10.8.1993. Challenging same, W.P.no.36726/1993 was filed. However, writ petition was dismissed on 16.06.1997 as Tariff HT-2(a) was applicable only to hospitals run by State/Central Government Institutions. Thereafter on demand being raised by respondents, petitioner paid revised Tariff. 3. On 15.07.1998 there was revision in Tariffs and even hospitals run by Charitable Institutions were brought - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 within concessional Tariff. On 07.07.2014 and 14.04.2014, petitioner approached respondent no.1 for availing concessional Tariff of HT-2(c)(i). On 07.04.2015 respondent no.1 changed Tariff of petitioner installation to HT-2(c)(i). Since then, petitioner has been paying electricity consumption charges. Thereafter, petitioner made several representations requesting for refund of excess amount paid, as it was not in dispute that petitioner was a hospital run by Charitable Trust and would be entitled for concessional Tariff from 15.07.1998. 4. It was submitted, on 14.04.2017 respondent no.3 passed an order holding that petitioner would be entitled for HT-2(c)(i) only from 22.08.2014. Aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before respondent no.2 in case no.OMB/M/G-285/2017. Though petitioner sought to rely upon certificate issued by income tax authorities under Section 12(A) Act, recognising it as Charitable Institution and seeking for application of revised Tariff HT-2(c)(i) from date of revision i.e., 15.07.1998, respondent no.2 under impugned order rejected said request. Aggrieved thereby present writ petition was filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 5. It was firstly contended that respondent no.3 had observed that certificate issued under Section 12(A)(a) of Act was an endorsement and not an order. Though petitioner had produced order under Section 12(A)(a) of Act, even respondent no.2 erroneously observed it to be only an endorsement and refused to grant benefit of revised Tariff from date of revision of Tariff. It was not in dispute that petitioner had submitted order passed under Section 12(A)(a) of Act and requested for concessional Tariff under its letter/representation as early as 3rd August, 1993 as per Annexure-B. Though, at that time hospitals run by Charitable institutions were not eligible for concessional tariff, with revision of tariffs on 15.07.1998, said claim would revive. Failure of respondents to have revised Tariff from date of eligibility was not justified. 6. Apart from same learned counsel further contended that there was suo motu revision of Tariff by respondents classifying petitioner institution under Tariff HT-2(a) instead of HT-2(C)(ii) which had led to excess billing. Insofar as said unilateral revision, in its order at Annexure-R, respondent no.3 held same to be illegal and directed refund. It was submitted, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 that respondents had not paid said amount. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition. 7. On other hand, Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents sought to oppose writ petition. While fact of petitioner availing power supply from authorities initially under HT-2(b) and later HT-2(c)(i) was not in dispute as well as revision of tariff on 15.07.1998 including hospitals run by Charitable Institutions would be eligible for concessional tariff at HT2(a) was admitted, it was submitted petitioner had filed application for availing said benefit only on 22.08.2014. In view of above, Ombudsman/respondent no.2 under impugned order had rightly granted benefit of revised concessional Tariff from said date. Representation at Annexure-B having been submitted prior to revision for different purposes cannot be taken advantage of by petitioner. It was submitted, respondent no.2 had referred to para no.25 of Tariff order dated 06.05.2013 passed by KERC, which provided, "whether institutions availing power supply could be considered as charitable or otherwise would be decided only on production of certificate in Form no.12A from Income Tax department". Since - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 Form-12A was made available only along with application on 22.08.2014, benefit was granted from said date. 8. Insofar as prayer no.3, it was submitted, in case amount directed to be refunded was not repaid (in terms of Order at Annexure-R) same would be paid or adjusted against future billing. Therefore, order passed by respondent no.2 was fully justified and sought for dismissal. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 10. From above, only question that would arise for consideration is: " Whether petitioner is entitled for revision of Tariff from date of order of revised Tariff being notified or date of application for availing benefit?" 11. Though petitioner seeks to rely upon representation at Annexure-B dated 03.08.1993 to contend that it had furnished certificate issued by income tax authorities recognizing petitioner as Charitable Trust, said representation was submitted for availing concessional Tariff HT-2(a). Said - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 request was considered and rejected and same was confirmed by this Court on ground that hospitals run by Charitable Institutions would not eligible to avail benefit of Tariff HT-2(a), as it was exclusively for hospitals run by State/Central Government. 12. Admittedly, there was revision of Tariff on 15.07.1998 including hospitals run by Charitable Institutions, for concessional Tariff. But, application to avail said benefit was filed much later. Prior to filing application for concessional Tariff, petitioner paid electricity user charges as per Tariff voluntarily applied. Therefore, it would not be open for petitioner to contend that respondent no.3 had faulted in not revising Tariff rate in case of petitioners based on certificate which it had submitted on earlier occasion for different purpose. 13. As per impugned order, petitioner has been granted benefit of revised Tariff from date of application ie 22.08.2014. Thus, there would be no justification for petitioner to claim refund of excess amount paid by seeking for fixing of Tariff retrospective from date of revision of Tariff. Contentions urged do not hold good. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31408 WP No. 23504 of 2022 14. Insofar as prayer no.3 in writ petition, passage of order by respondent no.3 as per Annexure-R directing refund is not in dispute. As there is no material to indicate that same is not already repaid, it would be proper to observe that petitioner would avail benefit of refund as per order at Annexure-R either by actual refund or by providing adjustment of said amount in future billing. With above observations, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31