Today, On 29th April, The Karnataka High Court questioned a fresh PIL against smart prepaid electricity meters, warning of possible misuse of judicial process. “Is this a misuse of the court process?” the bench asked, referencing similar pending petitions.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the government’s move to make smart prepaid electricity meters compulsory, especially for new electricity connections.
This PIL has raised important legal questions about whether such meters can be made mandatory or if they should remain optional, as per the rules.
Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar, representing the petitioner, argued that as per the rules, using a prepaid electricity meter is optional. However, she pointed out that the government-issued instructions or implementation guidelines are saying something different,
“According to the rules, using a prepaid meter is optional. But the instructions on how to follow these rules say something different.”
During the hearing, Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty informed the court that two other similar public interest cases are also scheduled to be heard after the current court vacation. He said that these two PILs, which raise the same points, have already been filed and are pending before a single judge.
The court asked, “Which case is it where the single judge gave temporary relief?”
To this, the Advocate General provided the case details.
The court then raised a serious concern about how the same petitioner could be arguing the same matter in two places.
The bench asked,
“You (the petitioner) cannot argue in two places at the same time, before the single judge and also in the PIL.”
In response, Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar clarified that the kind of issues being raised now should not have gone before a single judge.
“Issues about tenders should not be brought before a single judge.”
The Advocate General then gave the case numbers of the two PILs that are still pending before the single judge and argued that the facts, reasons, and requests in the current PIL are the same as those in the earlier petitions. He also informed the bench that one of those PILs had already been taken up and a notice was issued by the court on April 25
However, Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar strongly opposed the idea that the current petition is the same as the previous ones.
She said,
“Both PILs are about challenging the contract that was given, not about the rules or guidelines.”
She further added,
“In this public interest case, we have questioned the whole tender process and shown that one bidder was treated unfairly. The issues in this case are not the same as in the other case that was filed.”
But the court was not very satisfied with this explanation.
The bench asked ,
“We are not very willing to hear this petition. Do you want us to pass strict orders? You already filed a case before a single judge, and now you are filing this public interest case. Is this a misuse of the court process?”
To this, Senior Advocate Iyengar defended the petitioner by saying that the previous petitions were not dismissed. “The two earlier PILs were not rejected. The order by the single judge was about a different matter.”
The Advocate General maintained that the new PIL is not much different from the old ones and said,
“The requests in the other PILs are also similar. I have copies of those petitions.”
Senior Advocate Iyengar replied sharply, suggesting “that the earlier PILs were not filed independently Of course they have the petitions ,those PILs are all planned and controlled by them.”
Also Read: SC to Review Bar Association Claim- ‘Exemption From Paying Electricity Bills’
Finally, the court asked the petitioner to clarify whether she wanted a fresh and immediate order or if this case should be combined with the two already pending PILs,
“Do you want this petition to be added to the other Public Interest Litigations (PILs) where notices have already been sent, or are you asking for an immediate order?”
Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar requested the bench to treat the current petition as part of the other two. “Please add this petition to the other PILs. This petition should be listed along with the two other petitions.”
The case highlights the ongoing legal debate over the rollout of smart prepaid meters and whether people can be forced to accept them. It also brings attention to concerns about fairness in government contracts and whether similar cases should be heard separately or jointly. The matter will now be taken up along with the other related PILs after the court vacation.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
