- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1908 WP No. 8529 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8529 OF 2021 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: RAY LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RAY CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.HIG NO.200, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064, (REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, 7TH CENTRAL SUB-DIVISION, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BANGALORE-560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1908 WP No. 8529 of 2021 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS DIRECT R1 TO RESTORE THE POWER SUPPLY TO THE PETITIONERS INSTALLATION AS PER THE TERMS OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (E) BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -A UNDER THE LT-3 TARIFF CATEGORY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 06.03.2021 marked at Annexure-B, the order dated 23.03.2021 marked at Annexure-C and also the Notice dated 22.02.2021 marked at Annexure-D. In terms of order at Annexure-B, the first respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1908 WP No. 8529 of 2021 has intimated the petitioner that electricity supply to the petitioner's premises will be discontinued. The gist of the orders would indicate that this action is initiated pursuant to the direction issued by the BBMP. The order at Annexure-C would reveal that the security deposit furnished by the petitioner will be confiscated. 3. Annexure-D is the notice issued by the BBMP to remove the godown constructed by the petitioner. Since it is noticed that notice at Annexure-D dated 22.02.2021 is issued by the BBMP and BBMP is not made a party to the proceedings, notice at Annexure-D cannot be quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to assail Annexure-D after making the BBMP as a party subject to the contention relating to delay and laches, in the appropriate proceedings. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1908 WP No. 8529 of 2021 4. As far as Annexures-A & B are concerned, it is noticed that both orders are issued pursuant to the direction issued by the BBMP. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that BBMP has misconstrued the construction made by the petitioner as can be noticed from the contents of Annexure-D. Annexure-D would indicate that BBMP has stated that petitioner has obtained permission for construction of a commercial building and as such, the premises cannot be used as a godown. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would refer to permission granted by the BBMP as well as the occupancy certificate. The permission letter at Annexure-H dated 21.09.2020 would reveal that the commencement certificate was issued on that date after inspection and occupancy certificate was issued on 07.12.2020 as per Annexure-J certifying that the building is fit for occupation as an industrial building. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1908 WP No. 8529 of 2021 These documents clearly indicate that petitioner has obtained permission for construction of a industrial building. This being the position, the BBMP could not have issued notice misconstruing the construction as a commercial building as averred in Annexure-D. It is also noticed that respondent No.1 has not exercised it's jurisdiction independently and has just followed the instructions of BBMP. 7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the orders impugned at Annexures B & C are liable to be quashed. 8. Since BBMP is not a party to this proceeding, the observations made in regard to Annexure-D is not binding on BBMP. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. Annexure-B dated 06.03.2021 and Annexure-C dated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1908 WP No. 8529 of 2021 23.03.2021, both issued by the first respondent are quashed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38