WP/34378/2025 of SRI PRAKASH ARADYA Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM on 23 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:  Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate order or direction by quashing the impugned Endorsement dated (26.08.2025, bearing Sl.No.AEE/S-19/ΑΕ (T)/1153, issued by the respondent No.2, as per Annexure - J, in the interest of justice and equity.

 Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order or direction by directing the respondent No.2 to provide temporary connection to the petitioner schedule property for construction of the building, in the interest of justice and equity.

 Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary to be grant under circumstances of the above

HC-KAR

Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that when they have sought a temporary connection for electricity, the respondents have refused the request. In the endorsement dated 26.08.2025, it is stated that temporary power supply to an extent of 7KW; it is informed that earlier there was a power supply connection in favor of Shri Prakasha Aradya in respect of the very same premises. There was a due of Rs.33,20,665/- against R.R.No.GTEH1799 and the consumer made payment of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 28.01.2022, and there is an outstanding due of Rs.28,20,665/- pertaining to the scheduled property. Upon clearance of the outstanding dues of Rs.28,20,655/-, a temporary power supply will be arranged for the said property.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that they have not been served with the demand notice, and this endorsement is dated 26.08.2025. The second submission is that they have already paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for temporary power connection. According to them, there has been no power supply since 2012. As they have paid an

HC-KAR

amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, they are entitled for temporary power connection; as such, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent filed his objections. It is stated that the endorsement dated 26.08.2025 makes it very clear that there was an earlier demand for an amount of Rs.33,20,665/-. Apart from the said demand, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on 28.01.2022. The petitioner's application for temporary connection was dated 20.04.2025. Hence, the submission that they have paid the amount for temporary connection cannot be considered as i.e., that amount is paid in the year 2022. It is also submitted that a joint inspection was conducted, and the Rental Deed of the petitioner pertains to 2015, and it is submitted that from 2012 there is no power supply to the said premises. As per Regulation No.4.094, if any person decides to have electricity for a premises for which the power supply agreement has been terminated, he shall be treated as a fresh applicant, and the licensee shall collect the outstanding arrears in respect of the said premises from such persons before a connection is given. It is submitted that, considering the outstanding amount, they

HC-KAR

have issued the endorsement, and there is no illegality or irregularity with the said endorsement dated 26.08.2025. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.

5. In response to that, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that they were never aware of these proceedings. If those proceedings were provided, he would file a writ petition. For that, the counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, with regard to any billing grievance, they have to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (in short, CGRF). He submits that the petitioner has to go before the CGRF. When there is an alternative remedy, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner has questioned the endorsement dated 26.08.2025. In the said endorsement, there is a clear mention of an outstanding amount of Rs. 33,20,665/- and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which is paid. This Court is not able to appreciate the submission of the

HC-KAR

learned counsel for the petitioner that they were not aware of the demand notice raised by the respondent, and further that they have paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for a temporary connection. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the application is filed in the year 2025 and the amount is the paid in the year 2022. Hence, this Court is not able to appreciate the said submission. Then, coming to the other submissions made, when they have not questioned the demand notice of 2021, till now, as it is staring at him, and a part amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid by the petitioner, this Court cannot find fault with the said endorsement. Then, coming to the other submission that the demand notice is not issued to the petitioner, he is not aware of the demand notice; in either of the cases, his remedy is not before this Court. As per the Electricity Act, if it is permissible to question the same on the grounds raised by the petitioner, he is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned endorsement dated 26.08.2025. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. iii. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy, if the law permits questioning the demand notice of the year 2021. iv. Pending I.As if any in the petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 *AK