- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33193 WP No. 24070 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 24070 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. 2. 3. M/s. MY HOME PROJECTS, (PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTERED UNDER THE REGISTER OF FIRMS, KARNATAKA OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932,) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY.NO.40, MY HOME SANNIDHI, ALFA GARDEN LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, AYYAPPANAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE 560 036. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR.M.ASHOK, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O SRI.M.KRISHNAPPA, R/A NO.1-41, KAIGAL, THEERTHAM, BAIREDDI PALLE, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 415, AADHAR NO.7831 3288 1110 MR.K.MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU, AGED 63 YEARS, S/OF SRI.K.MUNASWAMY NAIDU R/A NO.401, 4TH FLOOR, VAJRAKAVACHAM APARTMENT, 6TH CROSS, UPADHYA NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 501, AADHAAR NO. 5024 6847 3589. MR.B.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33193 WP No. 24070 of 2025 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. S/O SRI.B. PAPI REDDY, R/A NO.5-19/1, JR KOTHAPALLI, KEELAPALLI, GANGAVARAM, PATHIKONDA, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517432, AADHAAR NO. 7226 9538 4204. MR.B. THULASEERAM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O SRI.B.KRISHNAIAH, R/A NO.6-19, GUNDLAPALLE, IRALA MANDALA, DAMALCHERUVU, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517152, AADHAAR NO.5215 7805 3250. MR.M.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SRI.M. KRISHNAPPA, R/A NO.1-41, KAIGAL, THEERTHAM, BAIREDDIPALLE, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517415, AADHAAR NO. 4735 4182 4807 SMT. ROOPA RANI.J., AGED 43 YEARS W/O SRI.RAMFSH M., R/A NO.143, NAGONDANAHALLI, VARTHURU, NAGONDAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 066. AADHAAR NO 4968 4917 9138 MR.M.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SRI.M.KRISHNAPPA, R/A NO.1-41, KAIGAL, THEERTHAM, BAIREDDIPALLE, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517415, AADHAARNO.473541824807 MR. B.NARENDRA REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O SRI.B.PAPI REDDY, R/A NO.8-98, JR KOTHAPALLI, KEELAPALLI, GANGAVARAM, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517432. AADHAAAR NO 9476 5552 8745 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33193 WP No. 24070 of 2025 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. MRS. M.SWAPNA, AGED 33 YEARS W/O SRI.M.ASHOK, R/A NO. 1-41, KAIGAL, THEERTHAM, BAIREDDIPALLE, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 415, AADHAAAR NO 2709 7642 5916 SMT. KRISHNAVENI K., AGED 38 YEARS W/O SRI. MANJUNATH.M., R/A NEAR MAANYAMMA TEMPLE NAAGONDANAHALLI COLONY, NAAGONDANAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066 AADHAAR NO 4202 7931 3708 MR.B. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O SRI.B. PAPI REDDY, R/A NO.5-19/1, J R KOTHAPALLI, KEELAPALLI, GANGAVARAM, PATHIKONDA, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517432, AADHAAR NO. 7226 9538 4204 MR.S.K. SIVAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O SRI.S. KRISHNAMURTHY, R/A PLOT NO.2/B, L S NAGAR, MR PALLI, TIRUPATHI URBAN, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 502, AADHAAAR NO 9414 3109 9927 MR.S.K. ASHOK, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O SRI.S. KRISHNAMURTHY, R/A PLOT NO.2/B, LS NAGAR, M R PALLI, TIRUPATHI URBAN, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517502. AADHAAAR NO 8349 0311 0747 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR.M.ASHOK, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O SRI.M.KRISHNAPPA, R/A NO.1-41, KAIGAL, THEERTHAM, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33193 WP No. 24070 of 2025 BAIREDDIPALLE, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 415, AADHAR NO.7831 3288 1110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUHAS G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HEAD OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., 4TH EAST SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., AGA FOR R1; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI LIKITH R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 31.05.2025 IN NO.AEE(EI)AE (TA)/PU4/2024-25/492 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) 4TH EAST SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, WHITEFIELD (ANNEXURE-H) AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO SANCTION ACCOUNT ID:5781748062 AND RR NO.4ETP29448, AS REFLECTED IN THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED BY BESCOM AND ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-G FORTHWITH. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33193 WP No. 24070 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging notice dated 31.05.2025 issued by respondent no.4 at Annexure-H and to restore electricity connection to meter bearing RR.no.4ETP29448, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Suhas G., learned counsel for petitioners submitted petitioners are owners of Sy.nos.95/4 and 95/5 forming part of old Sy.no.95/2 situated at Nagondanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East, measuring 11.04 guntas. Said property was purchased under Sale Deed dated 15.02.2023 at Annexure-A. Thereafter, Khata was got changed in petitioner-company's name and taxes were being paid to BBMP regularly. Petitioner-company had put up construction and obtained temporary electricity connection for same through meter bearing RR.no.4ETP29448. It was submitted, petitioner- company was paying consumption charges to BESCOM. However, respondent no.4 issued impugned notice to petitioner-company to show cause against disruption of power on ground that construction was put up without obtaining - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33193 WP No. 24070 of 2025 sanction plan. Petitioner-company was called upon to produce 'No objection certificate' from BBMP within 7 days. It was submitted, prior to issuance of notice, there was no inspection or enquiry conducted to determine construction put up by petitioner-company was in violation. Therefore, same is required to be quashed. It was further submitted, notice was never served upon petitioner. Therefore, disruption of power supply was in violation of principles of natural justice. On above grounds, sought allowing writ petition. 3. Learned AGA for respondent no.1, Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Likith R.Prakash, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 opposed writ petition. It was submitted, on receipt of complaints about construction put up by petitioner-company was without obtaining sanction plan and in violation of building by-laws, inspection was conducted and notice under Section 313 of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 ('Act' for short) was issued. On communication being sent to respondents no.3 and 4, notice at Annexure-H was issued. It was submitted, same would also be in tune with directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of Rajendra - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33193 WP No. 24070 of 2025 Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767. On said grounds, sought dismissal of writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 5. From above, it is seen petitioners' challenge against Annexure-H is on ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice. As submitted by learned counsel for respondents, Annexure-H is only a notice. Petitioner had not stated about having filed reply to same. Even if it were not served upon petitioners, on date of issuance, at least after receipt of Annexure-H, petitioners ought to have submitted reply. 6. In view of above and taking note of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case, instead of retaining writ petition, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition by permitting petitioners to file reply and directing respondents to consider same and pass appropriate orders thereafter. 7. Hence, writ petition is disposed of. Respondents are directed to permit petitioners to submit objections/reply to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33193 WP No. 24070 of 2025 Annexure-H within a period of 15 days from today, along with necessary documents and keeping in mind directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case. On receipt of same, respondent no.4 to get assertions in reply verified from respondent no.2 and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Until then, power supply to petitioners' premises through meter bearing RR.no.4ETP29448 is directed to be continued subject to payment of advance consumption charges, as may be required. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60