- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 1331 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT APPEAL NO.1331 OF 2016 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. ASHWINI MANOJ PATIL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O. LATE MANOJKUMAR VASANTRAO PATIL 2. MS. ADITI PATIL AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS D/O. LATE MANOJKUMAR VASANTRAO PATIL MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS. ASHWINI MANOJ PATIL 3. MASTER PARTH MANOJ PATIL AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS S/O. LATE MANOJKUMAR VASANTRAO PATIL MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS. ASHWINI MANOJ PATIL 4. MR. VASANT BHIMARAO PATIL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O. LATE BHIMARAO PATIL 5. MRS. MANGALABAI VASANTHRAO PATIL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O. VASANT BHIMARAO PATIL ALL THE ABOVE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1505, 5TH FLOOR KAVERI BLOCK, NANDI ENCLAVE Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 1331 of 2016 BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 076. …APPELLANTS (BY MS. SANJEEVINI, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI KEERTHI REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, (BESCOM) A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE CORPORATE OFFICE, 1, K. R. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001 3. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, (KERC) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M. G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 4. CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO.32/1-2, CRECENT TOWER, 2ND FLOOR BANGALORE - 560 001 5. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANAGALA BANGALORE - 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KRISHNA S., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI S. N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR R-4; SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, C.G.S.C., FOR R-5; R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 1331 of 2016 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.9667/2014. THIS WRIT APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9667/2014. 2. Ms. Sanjeevini representing Sri. Keethi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri. Krishna S., representing Sri. Sumana Naganand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. S. N. Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri. Harisha A. S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4 and Sri. A. Chandra Chud, learned CGSC for respondent No.5 are present before the Court physically. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 1331 of 2016 3. It is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. GHOSE Vs. SURESH SHANTARAM SATPUTE (D) AND ORS in CONMT. PET. (C) Nos.614-620/2020 IN SLP (C) Nos.25657-25663/2016, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made an observation that instead of remaining physically present for reporting compliance, they have chosen to engage new advocate. We deprecate the practice and also express hope that the advocates accepting such last minutes brief should eschew from doing so, which is nothing but trying to circumvent the proceedings before the Court. 4. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is deemed appropriate to refer that the learned counsel who come on record by filing Vakalath with NOC, it is nothing but a procrastinate proceedings and also trying to circumvent the proceedings. 5. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to refer the order rendered by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. The brief facts of the writ proceedings reveals that, as on 18.05.2013, at about - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 1331 of 2016 7.20.p.m., Mr. Manoj Kumar Vasantrao Patil was walking on Church Street, near Kaati Zone Restaurant in Bangalore along with his colleague Mr. Palgun V. S., for watching the IPL Cricket match being hosted at Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore and the same has been indicated in detail, in the brief facts of the writ proceedings. In the aforesaid writ petition, learned Senior Counsel have addressed their arguments along with learned counsel for the parties, respectively. The aforesaid order rendered by the learned Single Judge indicates that, Mr. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 has raised various contentions before the Court: firstly, things are not as simple as pleaded by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, for, the case of Sanjay Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 283) does not deal with the death of an individual, but deals with a tragedy which had caused the death of sixty-four persons, and had left more than hundred persons injured in a massive fire accident that had engulfed the India Brand Consumer Show organized in Victoria Part, Meerut on 10th April 2006. Moreover, in catena of cases where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted compensation to the victims, those - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 1331 of 2016 cases also dealt with human tragedies on a large scale. Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short) deals with notice of accidents and inquiries in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with any part of electric lines or electrical plant resulting in loss of human or animal life. Such accident need to be reported immediately to the Electrical Inspectorate. Section 161(2)(a) of the Act, empowers the Inspectorate to enquire into the case of any accident affecting the safety to the public, which may have been occasioned by, or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply of use of electricity. There are disputed questions of fact which would require both oral and documentary evidence, for which the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. 6. In paragraph No.11 of the order, it is indicating that these doubts can be cleared by the petitioners only by filing a civil suit for damages, where they would have ample opportunities for submitting oral and documentary evidence to establish that Mr. Patil died due to electrocution. However, the complicated issue of the cause of his death cannot be decided - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 1331 of 2016 by this Court in a writ jurisdiction. Although the writ jurisdiction is meant to protect the civil and fundamental rights of the people, but the said jurisdiction should not be invoked by this court when disputed question of facts, which require oral and documentary evidence, are raised. Since the present case involves disputed question of facts, this court is not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction. 7. Keeping in view Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also certain relevant provisions in Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants herein may be directed to proceed in accordance with law, to initiate proceedings before the Competent Civil Court having the jurisdiction to deal the issues. Consequently, the writ appeal is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4