1 Reserved on : 22.07.2025 Pronounced on : 13.08.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.12987 OF 2025 (GM - KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION No.12535 OF 2025 (GM - KEB) IN WRIT PETITION No.12987 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI P.M.HARISH S/O MAHADEVAPPA P.N., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.856-2, CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL KARNATAKA – 561 203. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, HAVING OFFICE AT ROOM NO. 236, 2 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR STREET, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY. 2 . BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, K.R.CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3 . ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.,) C, O & M URBAN SUB DIVISION, BESCOM DODDABALLAPURA – 561 203. 4 . M/S.RAJASHREE ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 154E, NIJALINGAPPA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA – 577 004. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.RACHEL RAJU ALICE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3; SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI A.MAHESH CHOWDHARY, SMT.RASHI SINGH AND SMT.KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATES FOR R-4) 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 25.04.2025 BEARING NO. AEE/AET/DBP-USD/2025- 26/650 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT MANDATES THE INSTALLATION OF SMART METER MANDATORY FOR THE PETITIONER; QUASH THE GUIDELINE NO-I, OF OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR SMART METER ISSUED ON 13/2/2025 BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. BESCOM/CGM (OP)/DGM (OP3)/2024-25/CYS-94, VIDE ANNEXURE- B, IN SO FAR IT STIPULATES A CONDITION OF COMPULSORY INSTALLATION OF SMART ENERGY METER FOR ALL NEW INSTALLATIONS; DIRECTION, BY DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 NOT TO COMPEL THE INSTALLATION OF SMART METERS AS MANDATORILY AND CONSEQUENTLY GIVE AN OPTION TO THE CONSUMER EITHER TO OPT FOR SMART METERS OR TO INSTALL ELECTROSTATIC ENERGY METERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WRIT PETITION No.12535 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. JAYALAKSHMI M., W/O VENKATESH G., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT: 5TH CROSS, T.B. NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT, DODDABALLAPUR – 561 203. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI ABHINAY S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 4 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) C, O AND M SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, DODDABALLAPURA URBAN SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU – 561 203. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI UDAYA HOLLA SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.RACHEL RAJU ALICE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DTD. 02.04.2025 BEARING NO. AEE/AET/DBP-USD/2024-25/22 ISSUED BY THE R-3 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A TO THE PETITION; DECLARE THAT, THE FACILITY OF AVAILING PERMANENT SMART METER ELECTRICITY CONNECTION IS NOT MANDATORY AND THAT KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (PRE-PAID SMART METERING) REGULATIONS 2024 SHALL BE MADE APPLICABLE FOR CONNECTION AND INSTALLATION OF SMART METER; DIRECT THE R-3 TO ISSUE A FRESH COMMUNICATION PROVIDING DETAILS OF COST OF PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION OF BOTH REGULAR 5 STATIC METER AND SMART METER FOR THREE PHASE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION FOR THE PETITIONER’S RESIDENCE. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER Both these petitions call in question communications dated 25-04-2025 and 02-04-2025 issued by the 3rd respondent respectively and the guidelines issued by the State Government in furtherance of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pre-paid Smart Metering) Regulations, 2024 (‘the Regulations’ for short) made by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘the Commission’ for short) concerning installation of pre/post paid smart meters. 2. Heard Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12987 of 2025; Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the 6 petitioner in W.P.No.12535 of 2025; Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 in both the petitions and Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in both the petitions and Sri K.N. Phanindra learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.12987 of 2025. WRIT PETITION NO.12987 OF 2025: 3. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity from the hands of the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (‘the Company’ for short). On 26-09-2024 the 2nd respondent/ Company issued a Notification calling for applications from eligible tenderers. The Notification was for the purpose of selection of service provider for sale of smart meters to prospective consumers on rate contract basis in retail outlets for arranging power supply to new connections and commissioning of IT system for a period of 5 years and maintenance for a period of 10 years which would come within the precincts of the Company. On 23-12-2024 the contract is awarded in favour of the 4th respondent for the aforesaid purpose. After 7 issuance of work order in favour of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent issues operational guidelines for smart meters, which is said to be mandating that the consumers shall install smart meters at their cost. The petitioner is said to have communicated to the 3rd respondent seeking installation of smart meter to a newly constructed house and also sought information about cost of old static meter and new smart meter that would be installed. The 3rd respondent is said to have communicated in return to the petitioner about the said cost of static meter and smart meter and further informed that the smart meter only should be installed. Therefore, contending that installation of only smart meter being contrary to guidelines or the Regulations of the Commission, the petitioner is before this Court. WRIT PETITION NO.12535 OF 2025: 4. The petitioner, in this petition, is again a consumer of electricity. It is the case of the petitioner that the Commission had issued Regulations wherein the consumers had the option to avail power supply to their installations through pre-paid smart meters 8 with effect from 1-04-2025. The Board of the Company passed a resolution to rollout smart meters through installation contract. The contract is awarded to one M/s Rajashree Electricals Private Limited, respondent No.4 in the companion petition. The Company later issued guidelines for smart meter rollout on 13-02-2025 and a circular later for implementation of the smart energy meter system. The Company then issues a Circular for adoption of smart energy meter which mandated such usage. The petitioner in the subject petition submits that when a requisition was made for converting single phase into three phase connection, the impugned communication comes about to the petitioner mandating the petitioner to procure a smart energy meter at arbitrary rate of ₹8800/- without providing any choice to the consumer. It is, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition calling in question imposition of installation of smart meter in her house. 5. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi and Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar appearing for the petitioners in unison contend that installation of smart meters is being imposed upon 9 every consumer at exorbitant prices when the comparative smart meter installation in the neighbouring State is at abysmally low price. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would submit that there is more than what meets the eye in the case at hand. On merit of the matters, both the learned senior counsel would submit that operational guidelines issued by the Company which is said to be in furtherance of the Regulations of the Commission, are in fact contrary to the Regulations notified by the Commission. The learned senior counsel would submit that the decision of imposition of installation of smart meters is marred by corruption and, therefore, should be obliterated. 6. Per contra, the learned Advocate General Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla and the learned senior counsel Sri K.N.Phanindra, representing the respondents as noted supra, would all in unison project a threshold bar. The threshold bar is on twin fold; the first fold being, locus of the petitioners to question a particular action which is in the nature of a public interest litigation and the second fold being, on the same issue a public interest petition is pending challenging the tender 10 awarded to the 4th respondent on the very same grounds. They would contend that, as a matter of fact, the averments in the writ petition viz., Writ Petition No.12987 of 2025 are copied and pasted to become averments of the said petition. They would, therefore, contend that when the matter is pending before the Division Bench, judicial discipline requires that the matter either be tagged to the writ petition pending before the Division Bench or the subject writ petitions should await the decision of the Division Bench, as the Regulations that are framed or the operational guidelines issued in the impugned communications are not only for the petitioners, but to all consumers coming with the precincts of the Company. Therefore, they would at the threshold contend that the issue should not be dealt with on its merits, since the Division Bench is seized on merit of the matter. This is not a public interest petition for this Court to entertain all that is being projected before the Division Bench. 6.1. Without prejudice to their submissions, the learned senior counsel would submit that what is projected by these petitioners is not what the facts are. The projection is primarily on 11 the ground that neighboring States are giving smart meters at a lesser price. They would seek to take this Court through the documents appended to the petitions to demonstrate that what is being given in the neighboring States is subsidy by the Central Electricity Regulatory Authority and the other part being contributed by the State Governments. In few of the States it is even more than what the petitioners have projected. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would join issue in contending that this Court is not precluded from deciding the issue, as these are not public interest petitions. These are individual petitions of individual consumers who are also hit by the Regulations. The learned senior counsel Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar in particular, would contend that whether the petitioner installs smart meter or otherwise, contribution towards maintenance would mandatorily be cut from the pocket of the petitioner which can be discerned from an electricity bill. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would submit that the petitions be allowed and communications implementing the Regulations of the Commission to the consumers be obliterated. 12 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The petitioners being consumers of electricity is not in dispute. The Commission issues a Notification on 06-03-2024 bringing in Regulations governing pre-paid smart meters. The Regulations are called the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pre-paid Smart Metering) Regulations, 2024. The Regulations that are germane to be noticed are as follows: “PREAMBLE: The Commission notes that, currently only in respect of temporary installations the Commission has ordered installation of prepaid meters and in respect of installations in Government buildings, installing prepaid meters is made optional, at the instance of the consumers. For all the other installations the Commission had not specified any Regulations. With the advent of technology and introduction of smart meters (with inbuilt facility for remote disconnection and reconnection) the electricity consumers may opt to avail power supply to their installations through pre-paid smart meters. Hence, the Commission issued draft Regulations on pre-paid smart metering for such of the consumers who desire to get them installed. The Commission invited comments / views / suggestions / objections from the stakeholders, general public and interested persons and also held a Public Hearing on 30.10.2023. 13 After considering the comments / views / suggestions / objections from the stakeholders, general public and interested persons, the Commission in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 47, Section 86 and Section 181 of the Electricity Act 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003) and all powers enabling it in that behalf, the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission hereby decides to notify the “Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pre-paid Smart Metering) Regulations, 2024” as follows: 1. Short Title and Commencement: 1.1 These Regulations shall be called the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pre-paid Smart Metering), Regulations, 2024. 1.2 These Regulations shall come into force from 01.04.2024. 1.3 These Regulations shall be applicable to the whole of the State of Karnataka. 2. Definitions and Interpretations: 2.1 “Act” means the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) and subsequent amendments thereof; 2.2 “Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI)” means an integrated system of smart meters, communication networks and data management systems that enables two-way communication between the utilities and energy meters, and the functional blocks of Advanced Metering Infrastructure typically include Head end system, Wide area network, Neighbourhood area network, Data concentrator unit (DCU) and Home area network; 2.3 “Commission” means the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission; 2.4 “Consumption Charges” means the consumption of electrical energy in kWh or kVAh multiplied by applicable energy charges and include demand charges / fixed charges, fuel & power purchase cost adjustment charges 14 (FPPCA), ToD charges, taxes / duties and any other applicable charges. 2.5 “Month” means calendar Month consisting of 30 days from the date of service. (example: if the installation is serviced on 20th of a month, the Calendar month will be complete on 19th of subsequent month). 2.6 “Disconnection” means the non-continuance of the electricity supply to the consumer from the licensee’s system; 2.7 “Pre-paid / pre-payment meter” means a smart meter conforming to relevant IS, which facilitates use of electricity only after advance payment; 2.8 “Re-connection” means continuance of the electricity supply to the consumer from the licensee’s system after prepayment of consumption charges by the consumer; 2.9 “Security Deposit” means deposit prescribed in Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Security Deposit) Regulations, 2007 and subsequent amendments thereon; 2.10 “Smart Meter” means an AC static watt-hour meter with time of use registers, internal connect and disconnect switches with two-way communication capability. It is designed to measure the flow of forward (import) or both forward (import) & reverse (export), store and communicate the same along with other parameters defined in relevant standards. It shall be remotely accessed for collecting data / events, programming for select parameters to be provided by the distribution utility for supplying electricity to an installation / premises. 2.11 “TOD Tariff” means The Time of Day tariff for peak and off-peak durations as may be prescribed by the Commission; 2.12 All other words and expressions used in these Regulations although not specifically defined herein above, but defined in the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory 15 Commission’s “Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka” / Regulations on “Recovery of Expenditure”, other Regulations of the Commission and in the Act shall have the same meaning. 3. Applicability and Procedure for availing facility under pre-paid Meters: These Regulations shall be applicable to all categories of consumers (new and all existing consumers). Provided that availing power supply through a smart pre-paid meter shall be at the option of the consumer except temporary installations, for which it is mandatory. 3.1 The existing/new consumers of the Distribution licensee may make an application to the licensee for arranging power supply through a smart pre-paid meter. The licensee shall allow the consumer to purchase the meter from the retail outlets of the Licensees, conforming to specified CEA Regulations/ Indian Standards, at their own cost and dispose of the existing meter, as per the existing practice, so as to avoid its misuse. 3.2 The pre-paid smart meters shall communicate to the distribution licensee, all the metered data at least once in a day and an authorized representative of the Distribution licensee shall physically read the meter once in every quarter. The data regarding energy consumption shall be made available on real time basis, to the consumer, through website, mobile App or any other digital mode. 3.3 In case maximum demand recorded by the smart pre- payment meter exceeds the sanctioned load in a month, the bill, for that billing cycle, shall be calculated based on the actual recorded maximum demand and consumers shall be informed of this change in calculation through Short Message Service or mobile App: 16 Provided that the revision of the Sanctioned Load, if any, based on the actual recorded maximum demand shall be as under: In case of increase in recorded maximum demand, at least three times during a financial year, the lowest of such increased monthly maximum demand, shall be considered as the revised sanctioned load, and the same shall be automatically reset from the billing cycle in next financial year: and 3.4 In case the consumer reduces his sanctioned load, the revision of sanctioned load shall be done in accordance with the Regulations /Supply Codes/Standard Operating Procedures issued by the Commission. 4. Security Deposit: In case of new connection with pre-paid smart meter, the licensee shall not collect any security deposit, in pursuance of sub section (5) of Section 47 of the Act. Provided that in respect of the existing consumer migrating to pre-paid smart metering arrangement, the security amount deposited with the licensee shall be adjusted against the last bill including arrears, if any, and the balance, if any, payable to / by the consumer shall be settled in full, at once. Provided further that in case of conversion of pre-paid to post-paid again security deposit shall be paid by the consumer in addition to other formalities, if any.” (Emphasis added) The Regulation that forms the fulcrum of the lis, is Regulation 3 which deals with ‘applicability and procedure for availing facility under pre-paid meters’. The said regulation mandates 17 that it would become applicable to all category of consumers – new and all existing consumers. The proviso indicates that availing of power supply through smart pre-paid meter shall be at the option of the consumer except temporary installations for which it is mandatory. 10. What is discernible is that the power supply through smart pre-paid meter would be at the option of the consumer – all consumers except temporary installation. For temporary installation it is mandatory. The Company issues certain operational guidelines on 13-02-2025 in furtherance of the Regulations. The operational guidelines that are germane are as follows: “I) Operational Guidelines for Arranging Power Supply through Prepaid Smart meter for new permanent/temporary installations. All new installations (all categories of consumers except temporary) are obligated to install with smart pre- paid/post-paid energy meter at their cost. Provided that availing power supply through a smart pre-paid meter shall be at the option of the consumer except temporary installations, for which it is mandatory. At the time of registration, if the applicant opts for pre-paid connection in case of permanent installation and mandatory pre-paid connection for temporary installations, the procedure to be followed is as below: 18 1. The application registration followed by field inspection, estimate preparation etc. shall be processed as per the existing procedures. 2. Power sanction letter shall be issued duly mentioning all the applicable charges, except security deposit. However, the applicant shall pay minimum amount equivalent to the monthly fixed/demand charges plus monthly energy charges in advance and the energy consumption charges shall be computed for one month based on the burning hours’ basis at the prevailing tariff rates as provided clause No.5.1 of the K.E.R.C. (Security Deposit) Regulations, 2007 and subsequent amendments. 3. After payment of necessary charges by the applicant, the work order shall be issued duly following the procedures as per KERC norms. 4. After completion of necessary electrical infrastructure (i.e., service line/service main etc.) and ensuring readiness of the applicant for availing power supply, respective AEE, C, O & M Sub-Division needs to issue the Smart Meter Procurement letter to applicant duly mentioning the number of meters, the meter procurement charges to be borne by the applicant and the monthly fixed/demand charges plus advance energy charges paid by the applicant. 5. The applicant has to purchase the meter from the respective divisional retail outlets. 6. AMI Service Provider will be responsible for collecting the smart meter from the consumer for installation and commissioning at the consumer’s premises and ensure that the smart meter is properly installed and integrated with the billing IT system through AMI system with appropriate tariff structure and category under the supervision of jurisdictional O & M officers (AEEs/AEs/JEs). 7. The commissioning of the smart meter shall be followed with PC test in the presence of designated Meter Testing Officers as per the existing practices. 19 8. The pre-paid smart meter shall read physically, once every quarter as per delegation of powers. 9. All other existing procedures shall remain unaltered.” (Emphasis applied) Between the said dates viz., 06-03-2024 and 13-02-2025 a tender is notified for installation of smart meters. The tender is awarded to the 4th respondent in Writ Petition No.12987 of 2025. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.12987 of 2025 is said to have sought information from the hands of the 2ndrespondent/Company as to the working and the pricing of smart meter. The information sought results in a communication to the petitioner, which reads as follows: “To, Sri. Harish. P. M S/o Late. Mahadevappa, No: 856-2, Chowdeshwari Temple street, Doddaballapura - 561203 Sir/Madam, Sub: Details of providing of cost of Regular Electrostatic meter & Smart meter - Reg Ref: 1) Your requisition letter dated: 24.04.2025 2) BESCOM/CGM (OP)/DGM (OPS)/2024-25/CYS- 94/13.02.2025 20 3) BESCOM/CGM (OP)/DGM (OPS)/2024-25/CYS- 95/15.02.2025 4) CGM (OP)/DGM (OPS)/AGM1 (OPS)/BC-18/F- 341/2024-25/CYS-102/25.03.2025 Adverting to above, you have requested this office to provide the cost of Regular Electrostatic meter & Smart meter to be installed for your newly constructed house. As per the circular vide ref-2, operational guidelines were issued for availing power supply through a smart meter (Prepaid/Postpaid) and vide ref-3, circular has been issued regarding the implementation of Smart energy metering system (Prepaid/Postpaid) as per which "Effective date for implementation of Operational guidelines to be followed for availing power supply through a smart meter (prepaid/postpaid)" along with various clauses of CoS, RoE and pre-paid smart meter regulation, Electricity Act 2003 in the jurisdiction of BESCOM would be 15.02.2025. As requested in the letter submitted from your end the details of the cost of the smart meters are as mentioned in the below table: Smart meter details Regular Electrostatic meter details Sl. No. Capacity of Smart Energy Meters Quantity Awarded Rates in Rs. Inclusive of GST Capacity of Electrostatic Energy Meters Quantity Awarded Rates in Rs. Exclusive of GST 1 5-30A, 230V (Single Phase smart meter with box and communication module) Per unit 4,998.00 LT Single phase 5-30A, DLMS Complaint Static energy meter, 1.0 Accuracy class Per unit 958.00 21 This is for your kind information Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/- Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele). C, O & M Subdivision, BESCOM, Doddaballapura Urban sub-division” Taking cue from the said prices, it is contended that it is exorbitant than what is provided in the neighboring States. 11. Elaborate objections are filed by the State and the private respondent/successful bidder. To ward off the obfuscation, the Commission clarifies to the Company with regard to installation of 2 10-60A, 3x230V (Three Phase whole current smart meter with box and communication module) Per unit 8,880.00 LT AC 3 Phase 4 wire, 5-30A, DLMS Complaint Static energy meter, 1.0 Accuracy class Per unit 2,380.00 3 -/5A, 3x230V (Three phase, LT CT operated Smart meter with Box and communication module) Per unit Per unit CT cost 15,000 13,080.00 LT 3 Phase 4 wire, CT Operated, DLMS Complaint ETV- 5A meter, class 0.5s Accuracy communication module) Per unit 3,396.00 22 smart meters. The clarification comes about on 19-05-2025. It reads as follows: “19-05-2025. All the Managing Directors, BESCOM/MESCOM/CESC/HESCOM/ GESCOM/HERCS/MSEZ/AEQUS SEZ. Sir/Madam, Sub: Regarding installation of smart meters. -- Your attention is invited to the following references on metering of installations: 1. The MoP Notification dated 17-08-2021 fixing time lines for installation of smart meters. 2. CEA (Installation and Operation of Meters) Amendment Regulations dated 28-02-2022 mandating that all the consumers with communication network in the area shall be supplied with smart meters working in prepayment mode and in the areas without communication network., the SERC’s were mandated to allow installation of smart meters. 3. Regulations issued by KERC vide Notification dated 06.03.2024 regarding Pre-paid Smart Meters. 4. Letter dated 26-02-2024 of KERC directing all ESCOMs to provide smart meters for all new installations. In the light of the above reference, the Commission hereby informs the following: 1. All the new installations, except IP sets, shall be serviced with smart meters and billing of all the temporary installations shall be through smart meters (Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) (Amendment)Regulations, 2022). The billing for temporary installations shall be in prepaid mode only. 2. The existing consumers who opt for prepaid billing shall replace the existing energy meters with smart 23 meters at their own cost (Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pre-paid Smart Metering) Regulations, 2024). Yours faithfully, Sd/- Secretary For Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission.” (Emphasis added) 12. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla representing the Company would contend that it is statutorily permissible for re- installation of meters, old meters should have to pave way to new meters. When this being the mandate of the statute, it cannot be said that the Commission is not endowed with the responsibility of improving the power supply mechanism and the Company does not have responsibility to follow the Regulations of the Commission. 13. There are plethora of submissions and contra-submissions made by both the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. While one factor runs through the submissions and the respective pleadings is that identical matter is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. This is an admitted fact. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent/successful 24 tenderer contends that the present petition is a masquerade of calling in question the tender awarded to the 4th respondent as one of the petitioners i.e., petitioner in Writ Petition No.12987 of 2025 is a rival tenderer. Having lost the tender or the rival tenderers who have lost the tender are wanting to shoot from the shoulders of the petitioner. Whether it is a public interest petition or this Court can entertain the petition will not be gone into by this Court, at this juncture, on a plain and simple reason that the matter is pending admittedly before the Division Bench, where the fulcrum of challenge revolves round of what is now projected before this Bench. It therefore becomes necessary to notice the similarity in the paragraphs in the writ petition before the Division Bench and before this Court. Juxtaposing the two, in its entirety, would bulk the subject order. I deem it appropriate to notice the synopsis, memorandum of writ petition, grounds, prayer and interim prayer through the following comparative table. The comparative table is as follows: SRL NO. WP (PIL) NO. 1211/2025 WP NO. 12987/2025 (GM-KEB) (WP before this Court) Synopsis: Synopsis: 25 1. Dates and Events in Synopsis (Srl No. 1, 2, 3, 4) Dates and Events in Synopsis (Srl No. 1, 2, 3, 4) 2. Para in Pg. No. 12 Para in Pg. No. 7 Memorandum of WP: Memorandum of WP: 3. Para 1 Para 3 4. Para 3 Para 8 5. Para 4 (there are minute changes in this para) Para 9 (there are minute changes in this para) 6. Para 5 (there are minute changes in this para) Para 10 (there are minute changes in this para) 7. Para 6 Para 11 (there are some minute additions in this para) & Para 12 8. Para 8 Para 13 9. Para 7 Para 16 10. Para 8 Para 17 11. Para 9 Para 18 12. Para 10 Para 19 Grounds: Grounds: 13. Para 11 Para 20 14. Para 12 Para 21 15. Para 13 Para 22 16. Para 14 Para 23 17. Para 15 Para 24 26 18. Para 16 & 17 Para 25 Prayer: Prayer: 19. Prayer C (Prays for quashing of the entire Operational Guidelines) Prayer B (Prays for quashing of only Guideline 1 of the Operational Guidelines) 20. Prayer D Prayer C Interim Order: Interim Order: 21. Prayer iii (Prays for staying the implementation of the entire Operational Guidelines) Prayer ii (Prays for staying the implementation of only Guideline 1 of the Operational Guidelines) 22. Prayer iv Prayer iii Therefore, when the matter is at large before the Division Bench, the propriety and discipline demands that this Court should not enter upon the controversy. 14. In this regard, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CHHAVI MEHROTRA v. DIRECTOR GENERAL, HEALTH SERVICES1, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: 1 1995 Supp (3) SCC 434 27 “1. The petitioner, Miss Chhavi Mehrotra, has moved this writ petition before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for directions for consideration of her admission to the MBBS course against the 15% all-India quota of 1992. This writ petition along with other similar petitions came for consideration and certain comprehensive directions were issued in matters for admission of students in the waiting list to various colleges in the country. In obedience to the orders of this Court a notification dated 28-5-1993 was issued by the Director General of Health Services calling upon the candidates to signify their willingness to be considered for admission under the scheme evolved by the court. Despite the whole matter being seized of by the court, the petitioner moved — and what is disturbing us is that the learned Judge of the High Court entertained — an independent Writ Petition No. 1508(M/S) of 1993 before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court and obtained certain directions which would not only be consistent with the consequences of the implementation of this Court's order but would also interfere and detract from it. Learned counsel would say that it was a direct interference with the proceedings before this Court. It is a clear case where the High Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter was clearly seized of by this Court in a petition under Article 32. The petitioner was eonomine a party to the proceedings before this Court. It is an unhappy situation that the learned Judge of the High Court permitted himself to issue certain directions which, if implemented, would detract from the plenitude of the orders of this Court. The learned Single Judge's perception of justice of the matter might have been different and the abstinence that the observance of judicial propriety, counsels might be unsatisfactory; but judicial discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is imperative that such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should strictly be avoided. We restrain ourselves from saying anything more. 2. The Director General of Health Services has filed this IA for stay of the orders of the High Court. We stay the orders dated 4-7-1993 as well as the order dated 19-7-1993 made by the Single Judge of the High Court in WP No. 1508(M/S) of 1993 and direct the High Court not to proceed with that writ petition. 3. Though, by this legal manoeuvre the petitioner has, prima facie, disentitled herself to any discretionary relief, we, 28 however, do not intend to deny her, such benefit as she may obtain pursuant to the selection made in terms of the orders of this Court. We are told at this stage that the petitioner has been allotted to a college in Rajasthan. That benefit may not be denied to her. 4. The order of the High Court directing that a seat be kept vacant in the King George's Medical College, Lucknow, is stayed and the Director General of Health Services is at liberty to fill it up otherwise.” The Apex Court holds that the Lucknow Bench of the High Court had obtained certain directions which would not only be consistent with the consequences of implementation of this Court’s order but would also interfere and detract from it. Therefore, the Apex Court holds that the High Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where the matter was clearly seized by the Apex Court in a petition under Article 32. The Apex Court further observes that the learned single Judge’s perception of justice of the matter might have been different and the abstinence that the observation of judicial propriety was necessary, but judicial discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is imperative that conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should be strictly avoided. 29 15. Long before the Apex Court rendered the aforesaid judgment, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of D.K. TRIVEDI & SONS v. STATE OF GUJARAT2, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 83. Civil Appeals Nos. 1525 and 1526 of 1982 are directed against the order of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the constitutionality of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the validity of Notification No. GU-81/75/MCR 2181/(168)-4536-CHH dated June 18, 1981, and directing the appellants to approach the Supreme Court as similar matters were pending there. In our opinion, the course adopted by the High Court was not correct. If the High Court thought that the point raised by the appellants was the same as was pending in this Court, it ought to have stayed the hearing of the writ petitions until this Court disposed of the other matters. As we have, however, held Section 15 and the amendments made by the said notification dated June 18, 1981, to be valid and constitutional, both these appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 84. All interim orders passed in all the above matters are hereby vacated. If as a result of this judgment and the interim borders passed by this Court, any amount becomes payable by any lessee of any mining lease or quarry lease to the State of Gujarat, the same will be paid by him to the State of Gujarat after giving such lessee credit for the amount already paid in respect of the same period as also any excess amount paid in respect of any other period. Such payment will be made by such lessee within six months from today. Correspondingly, if any amount becomes refundable by the State of Gujarat to any lessee of any mining lease or quarry lease, the State of Gujarat will refund the same to such lessee after adjusting against the amount refundable the amount actually recoverable in law and 2 1986 Supp SCC 20 30 recovered by the State of Gujarat from such lessee. Such payment will be made by the State of Gujarat within six months from today.” The Apex Court holds that when similar matters were pending before the Apex Court, the course adopted by the High Court was not correct. If the High Court thought that the point raised by the appellants was the same as was pending in the Apex Court, it ought to have stayed the hearing of the writ petition until the Apex Court disposed of the other matters. 16. If the observation of the Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgments, is paraphased to the facts of the case at hand, this Bench will have to, for the present, show judicial hands off, as identical matter in a public interest petition is pending before the Division Bench. As observed in the judgment of CHHAVI MEHROTRA, in the hierarchical system it is imperative that conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should be avoided. Taking cue from the said observation this Bench would not entertain the petitions, the soul of which is pending adjudication before the Division Bench. 31 17. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, the learned Advocate General has undertaken that the respondents would not insist these petitioners to get the smart meters installed in their houses. It is at their option of installing smart meters or otherwise. He would further submit that on plain perusal of an electricity bill it is clear that there is no charge indicated to a consumer who has not installed smart meter. In that light the writ petitions require to be disposed of, as whatever direction the Division Bench would render in the pending writ petitions/PIL would undoubtedly become applicable to these petitioners also. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: A perusal at the contents of the petition, particularly W.P.12987 of 2025 would depict that it is verbatim similar, with change in paragraph numbers to the writ petition pending before the Division Bench, albeit, filed in public interest. All the contentions that are now urged before this Court, are the grounds that are urged in the pending writ petition before 32 the Division Bench, barring a few which also would touch upon the pending proceedings. In the light of the identical issue and all proceedings pending before the Division Bench, judicial discipline demands and propriety requires this Court to show a judicial hands off to the present petitions. Therefore, the subject petitions are not entertainable, in the light of the aforesaid reasons. The learned Advocate General has undertaken during these proceedings that the respondents would not insist upon installation of a smart meter to the residential premises, if any of the petitioners in both these cases, as they are not new installations. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petitions are disposed of. (ii) Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited shall not insist on installation of smart meters by these two petitioners and also see that no extra charge is made upon these petitioners for maintenance of smart meters which they have not installed. 33 (iii) All other issues projected before this Bench would stand covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the PIL matter. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ