Shivaraj Patil, J. - (1.) this writ appeal is by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. The petitioner filed the writ petition and prayed for the following reliefs: (a) call for the records from the respondents which ultimately resulted in issuing the communication Annexure-A. (b) declare that the Section 5 of the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery Of dues) Act, 1976 as illegal and void in law. (c) declare the Regulation No. 41(c)(l) of the regulations of the Karnataka electricity board to the extent it directs the consumer to deposit the amount demanded in the bill before filing an appeal as illegal and void hi law. (d) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the annexure-a, dated 26-12-1988 made in No. N4/aee/aao/4540 by the 2nd respondent. (e) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition.
(2.) the petitioner's case was that it was a private limited company carrying on the business in plastic and rubber at industrial estate, peenya, Bangalore since 1982; the first respondent had given electrical connection to it through meter No. Rr w10/p.287/p1 430; neither the petitioner nor its employees had tampered with the said meter of electrical installation at any time; on 2-3-1988 it was noticed by the manager of the petitioner-company that the said meter installed in the factory of the petitioner was not functioning properly; the petitioner-company gave a letter dated 2-3-1988 to the second respondent; when no response was received, it sent another reminder dated 13-3-1988 by registered post acknowledgment due and also by hand delivery to the second respondent, served on 13-3-1988 itself; however in spile of repeated complaints given by the petitioner no steps were taken to rectify the defect in the meter; according to it, the meter was running very fast; to tbe utter surprise, the petitioner received a communication dated 26-12-1988 (annexurc-a to the writ petition), in which it was stated that the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was inspected by meter testing division, staff k.e.b. along with technical audit cell staff on 23-4-1988 and found that die meter was not recording; on that basis back billing was issued to the petitioner; the petitioner denied that the meter was inspected on 23-4-1988 as stated and Annexure a was illegal and void in law.
(3.) the learned single judge held that the decision of the Supreme Court Inm P.E.B. and others v Smt. Basanti Bai, AIR 1988 SC 71 covered the mailer in controversy. Accordingly, he allowed the writ petition.;