- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35445 WP No. 19357 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 19357 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. MR. LOKESH K P S/O LATE K M PAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SMT. SHASHIKAL A C W/O MR. LOKESH K P AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO. 18/2, 2ND CROSS, 8TH BLOCK OPP. KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE 560 095. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT.N.B.LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.B.N.SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER BESCOM, SOUTH ZONE, SRI. ARAVINDA BHAVAN 5, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CO AND M, S-4, SUB DIVISON, BESCOM, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35445 WP No. 19357 of 2024 3. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI A.N., W/O MR. SRIDHAR A.M., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.8, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NEW MICO ROAD, AUDUGODI, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI N. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER ARRANGING TO PROVIDE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY TO THE PREMISES BEARING NO.4 NEW MUNICIPAL NO.4, PID NO.67-24-4 SITUATED AT BAZAAR STREET, ADUGODI, BANGALORE PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION NO.021658488303 DATED 30.06.2023 ANNEXURE-B FILED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR SANCTION OF POWER SUPPLY BY RESPONDENT NO.2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) S4 KORAMANGALA BESCOM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEXURE-C BEARING NO. BESCOM/TEMP-PSLTR/5330097612/01-07-202342 DATED 1.7.2023 WITHIN A TIME FRAME. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35445 WP No. 19357 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents no.1 and 2 to consider petitioners' application for sanction of temporary power supply to premises bearing no.4, new municipal no.4, PID no.67-24-04 situated at Bazar Street, Adugodi, Bengaluru, by considering petitioners' application at Annexure-B within timeframe. 2. Smt.NB Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for Sri NBN Swamy, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondent no.3 was owner of vacant site no.4 and had executed a registered lease agreement on 24.07.2019 as per Annexure-A in favour of petitioners for period of 16 years. As per terms of lease, petitioners were permitted to put up construction and run PG therein. For said purposes, petitioners filed application with respondent no.2 as per Annexure-B for temporary power supply on 30.06.2023. In pursuance thereof, respondent no.2 had issued check list as per Annexure-C calling upon petitioners to furnish relevant records. It was submitted, though petitioners claims to have furnished those documents, it is alleged that respondent no.2 had not sanctioned power - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35445 WP No. 19357 of 2024 supply, constraining petitioners to approach this Court. It was submitted, Regulations require an application to be considered within 30 days and failure would entitle petitioners for reliefs sought. On said grounds, sought for allowing writ petition. 3. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri N.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent no.3 opposed writ petition. It was submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 that there was no dispute about petitioners having filed an application for temporary power supply as per Annexure-B and respondents no.1 and 2 calling for documents as per Annexure-C. However, at stage of processing, respondent no.3 had filed objections, which indicated that there was dispute between respondent no.3 - land owner and petitioners - lessee. Same had delayed consideration. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 would submit that writ petition was riddled with suppression of material facts. It was submitted, petitioners had suppressed that even prior to filing of this writ petition, O.S.no.1661/2021 filed by respondent no.3came to be decreed on 08.12.2023 by XXXVIII - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35445 WP No. 19357 of 2024 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-39) wherein petitioners were ordered to be evicted from premises. It was submitted, decree was not challenged by petitioners and respondent no.3 had filed Execution Petition. Petitioners appeared in said petition and same was at stage of execution of delivery warrant. Suppressing above material facts, writ petition was filed initially without arraying owner as party and only BESCOM as party. Therefore, petitioners had not approached Court with clean hands. 5. It was also submitted that since respondent no.3 was having judgment and decree for eviction against petitioners in respect of premises in question, grant of power supply by respondents no.1 and 2 to premises would be in futility. It was further submitted, building in question was not yet completed and construction was without obtaining sanction plan. Therefore, prayer sought herein would be impermissible, in view of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767 and sought for dismissal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35445 WP No. 19357 of 2024 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 7. At outset, it is seen that only prayer sought by petitioners is for direction to respondents no.1 and 2 to consider petitioners' application for grant of temporary power supply to premises in question, on ground that petitioners were in possession thereof as lessee. Perusal of Annexures-B and C would indicate on filing of application for temporary power connection by petitioners and its pendency with respondents no.1 and 2, is not in dispute. 8. As per Annexure-C, respondent no.2 had called upon petitioners to furnish sanctioned building plan, certain compliance in case of load requirement exceeding 35 Kilowatt and installation of a solar water heater in case, built up area was more than 600 sq.ft. Same would indicate that application was under consideration. Though learned counsel for petitioners claims that said requirements were fulfilled, there is no material to indicate same. In any case, respondents would require to consider application along with material made available in light of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35445 WP No. 19357 of 2024 as spelt out in para 21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case (supra). 9. It is also seen, during pendency of this writ petition, in pursuance of interim direction, respondent no.2 has granted temporary power supply. At same time, respondent no.3 claims to have obtained decree of eviction against petitioners in respect of premises and same was pending in Execution Petition and he claims to have filed objections. 10. Under above circumstances, only indulgence required would be to dispose of writ petition by directing respondents no.1 and 2 to continue power supply to premises of petitioners on temporary basis, by collecting advance consumption charges as applicable subject, to final outcome in Execution Petition stated to have been filed for execution of decree passed in OS no.166/2021 or till petitioners continue in possession of premises and consider petitioners' application in light of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case (supra), which shall be done within period of three weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35445 WP No. 19357 of 2024 11. In light of above factual circumstances, contentions about petitioners being guilty of suppression etc. need not be examined by this Court. With above directions/observations, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12