Karnataka High Court Restricts KPTCL's Power to Hike Supervision Charges
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) does not have the authority to increase supervision charges beyond the prescribed limit of 10% of the estimated cost. The decision came in response to a petition filed by a real estate firm challenging the demand for excessive supervision fees by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom).
Petitioner's Project and Bescom's Conditions
The petitioner, a real estate development firm, had sought a power supply of 8,459 KW for its multi-storey residential project located at Kyalasanahalli village, KR Puram hobli in Bengaluru. Bescom approved the power supply subject to several conditions, including the payment of supervision charges at 10% of the estimated cost of Rs 4,35,82,608, but not exceeding Rs 15,00,000. However, the firm alleged that Bescom later demanded higher supervision charges, exceeding the stipulated cap.
Court's Observation and Ruling
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, observed that KPTCL and its distribution companies cannot unilaterally hike supervision charges beyond the prescribed limit. The court stated that the supervision charges are governed by the Regulations of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC), which fix the maximum at 10% of the estimated cost. Any demand exceeding this limit is illegal and without jurisdiction.
The court further noted that the petitioner had already paid the supervision charges as per the initial approval, and Bescom's subsequent demand for additional amounts was arbitrary. The High Court quashed the demand for extra charges and directed Bescom to process the power supply connection without further delay.
Impact on Power Consumers
This ruling sets a precedent for power consumers in Karnataka, particularly for large-scale projects requiring high-voltage connections. It reinforces that distribution companies cannot impose arbitrary charges beyond the regulatory framework. The decision is expected to benefit real estate developers, industrial units, and other bulk consumers who often face demands for excessive supervision fees.
According to the court, the supervision charges are meant to cover the cost of overseeing the installation of power infrastructure, and any deviation from the prescribed limit would be a burden on consumers. The court emphasized that KPTCL and Bescom must adhere to the KERC regulations strictly.
Legal Representation
The petitioner was represented by advocates Pramod N. Katarki, S. Sriranga, and others. The respondents, including KPTCL and Bescom, were represented by their respective legal counsel. The court's order was issued on June 26, 2026.
