- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38870 WP No. 14324 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 14324 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: M/S. ADHYAPANA SCHOOL SOCIETY REG NO. (234/94-95) SITUATED AT NO.30, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHINNANNA LAYOUT KAVALBYRASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 032. REP BY ITS SECRETARY NAMELY MRS. RESHMA KHANUM …PETITIONER (BY SRI N MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38870 WP No. 14324 of 2025 3. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER C5 SUB DIVISION, BE.VI.COM, KAVALBYRASANDRA BANGALORE - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R2; SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED NIL BEARING NO. SA.KA.EM (V)/SA.EM(TAM)/C5/2025- 26 ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY OF OPERATION OF NOTICE DATED NIL, BEARING NO.SA.KA.EM (V)/SA.EM (TAM)/C5/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION. 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:38870 WP No. 14324 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging undated notice said to have been issued by respondent no.4 at Annexure-F, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri N Manohar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, in pursuance of registered rental agreement dated 08.05.2019 at Annexure-A, petitioner became tenant of premises bearing no.829, PID no.95-52-829, 1st Main road, Chinnanna Layout, Kavalbyrasandra, RT Nagar Post, Bangalore, measuring 60 ft. X 40 ft., wherein he was running a school by constructing a building after obtaining approved plan as per Annexure-E. Such being case, respondent no.4 issued notice at Annexure - F for disconnection of power supply on account of alleged construction being in violation of sanctioned building plan. It was submitted said notice was issued on basis of communication by BBMP. It was submitted counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 (BBMP) had filed memo producing copies of provisional order, notice and confirmation order as well as order for demolition passed under Sections 248 (1), (2), (3) and 356 of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 ('BBMP Act 'for short). It was submitted, challenging same, on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38870 WP No. 14324 of 2025 13.06.2025, petitioner had filed Appeal no.128/2025 under Section 253 of BBMP Act and it was pending. In view of same, issuance of notice would not be justified. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition. 3. On other hand, Smt.Vaheeda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1, Smt.Sumangala Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Smt.Padma S Uttur, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, on an intimation by BBMP about construction put up by petitioner being in violation of sanctioned plan and as petitioner was seeking to run school in residential area, notice was issued to petitioner and same was in accordance with direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767. Therefore, sought for dismissal of petition. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38870 WP No. 14324 of 2025 5. From above, petitioner's grievance against notice at Annexure-F would be that in terms of his rights as lessee under registered lease deed at Annexure-A, petitioner had obtained sanctioned building plan and put-up construction and running a school therein. While respondent no.2, alleges construction to be in violation of sanctioned plan, wherein orders are passed and Appeal filed against said order which was presently pending. It is also contended that particulars mentioned in notice do not clearly indicate that they were issued in respect of premises, wherein petitioner was running a school. 6. At outset, initiation of action by respondents on ground that construction put-up by petitioner was in violation of sanctioned building plan, would appear to be in accordance with directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Barjatya’s case (supra). But, petitioner claims to have filed appeal. Therefore, it would be appropriate for respondents to await conclusion of appeal before proceeding with disconnection of power supply. On said ground notice at Annexure-F would require to be discharged till then. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38870 WP No. 14324 of 2025 7. In view of above, writ petition is allowed in part. Notice at Annexure-F stands quashed, reserving liberty to respondents to take further action based on result of appeal no.128/2024 filed before Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, which is directed to dispose it within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order after providing adequate opportunity to petitioner and to intimate result of appeal to petitioner as well as to respondents no.3 and 4. It is also clarified that respondents would be at liberty to take action, if necessary. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39