- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34417 WP No. 26331 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 26331 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SMT. V SAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR B M., R/A NO.12/13, 20TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, TAVAREKERE, BANGALORE SOUTH, DHARMARAM COLLEGE, BENGALURU - 560 029. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI K N BHASKAR NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI CHINNABBA NAIDU, RESIDING AT NO.1-29, BALAKRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, PALASAMUDRAM MANDALAM, KOTHAVENKATAPURAM, CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 421. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SIDDHARTHA D. K., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34417 WP No. 26331 of 2025 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (BESCOM), CORPORATE OFFICE, BESCOM, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001, AUTHORISED OFFICER/MANAGER. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), BESCOM, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WHITEFILED DIVISION, BESCOM, BENGALURU - 560 066. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, 4TH EAST SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, WHITEFIELD, HOME PHARMA, BENGALURU - 560 092. 6. JUNIOR ENGINER (ELE) BESCOM, VARTHUR SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, WHITEFIELD, BENAGLURU - 560 092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING NOTICE BEARING NO.SAKAAIM (VI)/SALM(TAA)/POO4/2025-26/2369 DATED 24.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE - L TO THE WRIT PETITION, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND ETC., 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:34417 WP No. 26331 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Writ petition is filed challenging notice dated 24.07.2025 passed by respondent no.5 at Annexure-L and for a direction to respondents no.3 to 6 to restore power supply to petitioner's premises etc. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is owner of site no.16 formed in Sy.no.2/1, Varthur village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring 1935 sq.ft. in pursuance of sale deed dated 31.07.2006 at Annexure-A. It was submitted on 25.09.2023, petitioner along with her family members entered into Joint Development Agreement with Sri V Jeevan Kumar, KN Bhaskar Naidu and P Bharath Kumar Reddy ('developers' for short), as per Annexure-B. They also executed registered Power of Attorney in favour of said developers. Thereafter, petitioner/developers applied for building sanction plan and licence as per Annexures- F and G. On payment of necessary amount and furnishing necessary records, sanction plan and licence were issued. Thereafter petitioner filed application before respondents no.3 to 6 for sanction of power supply to an extent of 45 KW LT. On - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34417 WP No. 26331 of 2025 consideration, sanction was accorded as per Annexure-J and petitioner availed same through meter bearing RR no.4ETP 30088 and paying consumption charges regularly. However, respondents no.3 to 5 disconnected power supply allegedly on basis of notice dated 24.07.2025 at Annexure-L (impugned) herein and an endorsement dated 04.08.2025 at Annexure - M. 3. It was submitted, prior to disconnection, petitioner was not issued with any notice and thus in violation of principles of natural justice. On said ground sought for interference. 4. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 would submit, that on noticing construction being in violation of building bylaws, provisional order and confirmation orders, dated 01.02.2025 and 10.07.2025 respectively passed under Section 248(1) and (3) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Act, 2020. Same was informed to respondents no.3 to 6 for disconnection. It was submitted, said action on part of respondents was in terms of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34417 WP No. 26331 of 2025 U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3767. 5. Learned counsel for respondents no.3 to 6 accepting said submission, submits action initiated by respondent no.5 was in pursuance of intimation by respondent no.2 and in terms of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Barjatya's case (supra) and hence, no interference was warranted. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate also opposed petition. 7. In reply learned counsel for petitioner would submit that neither impugned notice nor orders stated to have been issued/passed by respondent no.2 under Sections 248(1) or 248(3) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, ('BBMP Act' for short) in name of petitioner even though he was owner of property and therefore illegal. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 9. From above, petitioners grievance against action of respondents disconnecting power supply to petitioner's premises is that same was without complying with principles of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34417 WP No. 26331 of 2025 natural justice. Perusal of impugned notice at Annexure-L and orders stated to have been passed by respondent no.2 under Section 248(1) and 248(3) of BBMP Act, (copies of which are made available for perusal by this Court), would indicate they are not issued/passed in name of petitioner, but in name of developers. Instead of delving into issue whether same would be sufficient compliance with principles of natural justice, since petitioner would be affected by disconnection, an opportunity could be granted to petitioner. 10. In view of above, instead of retaining writ petition, it would be appropriate to direct petitioner to treat notice at Annexure-L and orders passed by BBMP under Section 248(1) and 248(3) as issued/passed in name of petitioner, permit petitioner to file objections to notice at Annexure-L within specific period and direct respondents to consider same in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly , writ petition is disposed of. Petitioner to treat Annexure-L as show-cause notice issued to him and file objections thereto within a period of three weeks from today appending records/documents to indicate that construction put - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34417 WP No. 26331 of 2025 up was in compliance with law, especially, directions issued in para no.21 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Barjatya's case (supra). On receipt of same, respondent no.5 shall obtain opinion of respondent no.2 thereon and thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders within three weeks thereafter. Till then respondents no.3 to 6 to restore power supply to petitioner's premises bearing Meter RR no.4ETP 30088, subject to payment of consumption charges. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56