- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34923 WP No. 20004 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 20004 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. MR. ALTHAF AHMED S/O SHAIK AMEER AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. MRS. ARSHIYA TASNEEM, W/O MR. ALTHAF AHMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/A NO. 63, 2ND MAIN ROAD, R.M.S COLONY, BHATTARAHALLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 049. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD CORPORATE OFFICE SITUATED AT K.R CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP BY TIS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (D) E11 SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34923 WP No. 20004 of 2025 RAMAMURTHY NAGAR - BESCOM, BANGALROE-560 016. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, K.R PURAM SUB-DIVISION, K.R PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJAMMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTICE/LETTER BEARING NO. SAKAEM/(V)E11U.V/SA.EM (TAM)24/25/182-185, DATED 24.04.2025, ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PROVIDE /CONTINUE THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO THE PETITIONERS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE I.E., SCHEDULE PROPERTY HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34923 WP No. 20004 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging notice dated 24.04.2025, issued by respondent no.2 as per Annexure-G, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, petitioners were owners of site no.23, Khata no.1052, property no.46/1, property new DPID no.5555530545, property no.408/Sy No.46/1/S No/23, situated at 3rd Cross, Subhash Nagar, near Wings Honda Showroom, Bhattarahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, now within jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Ward no.52, totally measuring 40X30 ft. having purchased it under registered sale deed dated 26.07.2012 as per Annexure-A. After purchase, petitioners' names were entered in revenue records and they were paying taxes as per Annexures - B and C. 3. With an intention to put up construction, petitioners had applied for and obtained temporary electricity connection from respondent no.2 through RR.no.11EEH39173, 11EEH39174, 11EEG39180, 11EEG39177, 11EEG39179, 11EEH39175, 11EEH39176, and 11EEH39178. Petitioners had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34923 WP No. 20004 of 2025 deposited necessary amount and obtained building plan and sanction. Thereafter petitioners completed construction and were undertaking interior works. It was submitted, petitioners had completed construction by borrowing money from money lenders. When suddenly on 24.04.2025, respondent no.2 had issued impugned notice and disconnected power supply. It was submitted, since electricity was an essential service, deprivation of same without providing opportunity to petitioners was in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, impugned action of respondents in disconnecting power supply being illegal, sought for quashing Annexure-G. 4. Smt.KS Girijamma, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 opposed writ petition. It was submitted by learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 that Annexure-G was issued in pursuance of directions issued in para no.21 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3767, and intimation by respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34923 WP No. 20004 of 2025 no.3 about construction by petitioner being in violation of building bylaws. 5. Learned counsel for respondents no.3 would submit that provisional order was passed under Section 248(1); show- cause notice issued under Section 248(2) on 07.11.2024 and order of confirmation passed on 23.12.2024 under Section 248(3) of BBMP Act. Therefore, action by respondents being in tune with directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Barjatya's case (supra) would not be liable for interference and sought for dismissing writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 7. From above, petitioners grievance against impugned notice at Annexure-G is that respondents had without providing opportunity to petitioners, disconnected power supply. 8. Perusal of notice at Annexure-G would reveal that same was issued on 24.04.2025, calling upon petitioners to show cause against disruption of power supply alleging that construction put up by petitioners was in violation of building - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34923 WP No. 20004 of 2025 bylaws. Though, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, notice at Annexure-G is not served on petitioners, very filing of writ petition by producing copy would indicate that petitioners had atleast constructive notice of same. Since, it is a shw-cause notice, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition by permitting petitioners to file objections against Annexure-G within time limit and directing respondents to consider same before passing orders thereon. 9. Consequently, writ petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to file objections to notice at Annexure-G within two weeks from today, whereupon respondent no.2 would obtain say of respondent no.3 on petitioners' objections and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Barjatya's case (supra). Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54