- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.24416 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTHA PRABHAKAR W/O LATE U. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT SEETA NILAYA, PITRODY, UDAYAVARA POST AND VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK-574118, FORMER PROPRIETOR OF M/S. CANARA ICE PLANT, A DISSOLVED PROPRIETARY CONCERN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AJITH A SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MESCOM, UDUPI DIVISION, UDUPI DISTRICT-576101. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MESCOM, UDUPI SUB-DIVISION, UDUPI DISTRICT-576101. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, MESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE, PARADIGM PLAZA, A.B. SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALURU-575001. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT-576101. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI RAJAKUMAR M., AGA FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICES, COMMUNICATIONS, AUDIT CLAIM AND ACTIONS INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 PURSUANT TO THE ALLEGED BACK BILLING AUDIT SHORT CLAIM OF, RS.9,83,183/- (RUPEES NINE LAKH EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THREE) INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS DATED 02.06.2025 AND 03.06.2025 (ANNEXURES-P AND Q), AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ARBITRARY, UNFAIR, VIOLATIVE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND ULTRA VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (KERC) REGULATIONS AND THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the demand notices, communications issued by respondent Nos.2 to 4- MESCOM, seeking recovery of the audit claim pertaining to R.R. No.1032/2024 and further, assailing the initiation of recovery proceedings under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘KLR Act’ for short). Brief facts: 2. The petitioner is the widow of late U. Prabhakar, proprietor of Canara Ice Plant, who had availed electricity supply from MESCOM in 1980. During an inspection between 1983 and 1985, the installation was found to have the meter in a “Meter Not Recording” (MNR) condition. Consequently, the respondent-corporation issued a back-billing demand of `26,026.80/- based on average consumption in terms of Clause 27.04 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution of Licenses (‘Supply Conditions’ for short). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 3. The petitioner instituted O.S. No.300/1989 and O.S. No.323/1989 for relief of declaration and consequential injunction, which were decreed in her favour. However, in R.A. No.36/1990 and R.A. No.37/1990, the appellate Court reversed the decrees on 06.09.1997, directing the Board to re-issue a show-cause notice, obtain objections, and adjudicate the audit claim. 4. The petitioner challenged the appellate judgments in RSA No.533/1998 and RSA No.534/1998, which were dismissed on 09.07.1999. 5. Pursuant thereto, MESCOM issued several notices, including the show-cause notice dated 23.04.1998 and official communications dated 06.09.2000, 19.09.2000, 06.10.2000 and 18.10.2000. A final notice dated 20.12.2000 demanding payment of `1,16,471/-. Upon failure to pay, a disconnection notice dated 29.12.2000 was issued. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 6. The petitioner again approached the Civil Court in O.S. No.10/2001 for declaration and injunction, which was decreed on 19.10.2010. However, the decree was reversed in R.A. No.61/2010 on 11.11.2015. Thereafter, since the petitioner did not clear the outstanding charges, the respondent-corporation instituted recovery proceedings before the District Commissioner, culminating in letters dated 03.06.2025 and 02.07.2025, seeking recovery of arrears as land-revenue dues. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the back billing claim pertaining to the meter-fault period between 1983 and 1985 is barred by limitation and is contrary to the Regulation 27.04 sub-clause (vii) of the KERC Supply Code, which restricts retrospective billing to six months. It is contended that no proper adjudication was ever conducted and no speaking order was passed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 despite repeated representations, and therefore, the initiation of recovery as a land-revenue is violative of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the demand of `9,83,183/- is arbitrary, and disproportionate, and that she had offered to settle the principal amount but was unable to pay the accumulated interest. It is submitted that the respondents have mechanically invoked coercive powers without complying with the directions of the appellate Court or the procedure prescribed in law. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation submits that the MNR condition was duly recorded in 1983-1985 and back billing claim of `26,026.80/- was raised strictly in accordance with Clause 27.04 of the Supply Conditions. It is submitted that the earlier suits filed by the petitioners were overturned in R.A. Nos.36/1990 and 37/1990 with a clear direction for issuance of show-cause notice, calling for objections and passing of orders, which were fully complied with. Learned counsel further submits the petitioner’s second appeal RSA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 Nos.533/1998 and 534/1998 were dismissed by this Court thereby confirming the liability in principle and attaining finality. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner repeatedly avoided payment despite several notices from 1998 onwards and has engaged in litigation solely to evade the legitimate dues, and therefore, the respondent was constrained to invoke the recovery proceedings under the KLR Act. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the demand notices and recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents-MESCOM relating to the audit short claim arising from the meter-fault period between 1983 and 1985, on the ground of violation of statutory provisions, natural justice, limitation or arbitrariness?” 11. The audit short claim and the petitioner’s liability were the subject of earlier proceedings. With regard to the petitioner’s contention that the back billing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 raised for the period 1983-1985 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Regulation 27.04 of the KERC Code, this Court finds no merit for the reason that the issue relating to the legality, validity and enforceability of the audit short claim has already been adjudicated through multiple tiers of judicial scrutiny and has thereby attained finality. 12. The petitioner had earlier questioned the back billing in O.S. No.300/1989 and O.S. No.323/1989, though the suits were decreed in her favour, the respondent- corporation preferred R.A. Nos.36/1990 and 37/1990, wherein by a detailed judgment dated 06.09.1997, the First Appellate Court set aside the decrees and upheld the authority of the Electricity Board to raise back-billing, subject to compliance with procedural safeguards, including issuance of show-cause notice, affording opportunity to submit objections, and passing a necessary order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 13. The petitioner thereafter filed RSA No.533/1998 and RSA No.534/1998 before this Court. Both second appeals came to be dismissed on 09.07.1999 with a categorical finding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, thereby affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court in their entirety. 14. Pursuant to the directions, the Board issued show-cause notices dated 23.04.1998 and several subsequent communications during 2000 calling upon the petitioner to make submissions, however, except for seeking adjournments, the petitioner did not contest the computation on merits, resulting in issuance of final demand notice dated 20.12.2000. 15. Even thereafter, when the petitioner again approached the Civil Court in O.S. No.10/2001 and obtained a decree the same was reversed in R.A. No.61/2010 on 11.11.2015, once again holding against the petitioner on the issue of liability. Thus, through the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 judgments rendered in the years 1997, 1999 and 2015, the legality of the back billing, the entitlement of the respondent-corporation to raise such audit claim, and the crystallization of the petitioner’s liability have all been adjudicated and have attained finality. 16. In the light of this successive and binding adjudication, the petitioner cannot now, under the guise of the present writ petition, re-open or re-agitate the very same dispute by invoking regulatory provisions or principles of limitation when the foundation of the liability has already been judicially upheld. The attempt to re- agitate the matter that has attained finality is impermissible and the challenge to the back billing must fail at the threshold. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51553 WP No. 24416 of 2025 ii. The impugned demands and communications issued by the Corporation, including the letters dated 03.06.2025 and 02.07.2025 initiating recovery of arrears as arrears of land revenue, do not call for interference and are accordingly upheld. iii. It is needless to observe that the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the recovery of their outstanding dues in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31