- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35505 WP No. 6782 of 2025 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. 6782 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GAJJALA JAYAPRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SRI GAJJALA SOMIREDDY, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. SIRI HOMES, NO.333/1, NEAR ANDHRA BANK, BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 2. SMT. NAGALAKSHMI RAJANALA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, W/O SRI NARAPAREDDY RAJANALA, R/AT NO.36 B BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, CHIKKABETTAHALLI, VISHWANAGARA, VIDHYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU 560 097. ALSO AT BAGALURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 149. 3. SRI. SANTHOSH M KALASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SRI. MALLINATH, R/AT ALAND, TADKAL, KALABURAGI - 565302. 4. SRI. RAJESH T M AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SRI. MALLAIH, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35505 WP No. 6782 of 2025 R/AT NO.337, BAGALURU, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU 562 149. 5. SRI. RAKESH S, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O SRI SHIVAKUMAR A., R/AT NO.165, BAGALURU, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU 562 149. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VARADARAJ P N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED BENGALURU ADVOCATES - BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, VIDYA NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, VIDYA NAGAR- 562 157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHU V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 24.10.2024 IN NO.SA.KA.NI.EM/SA.EM (TA)/ VIDYANAGAR/24-25/2432 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. 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:35505 WP No. 6782 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging notice dated 24.10.2024 issued by respondent no. 2 at Annexure-G, this petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted, petitioner no.1 is Managing partner of M/s. Hari Holmes, a partnership firm, involving in development of land and construction of multi-storeyed buildings. It was submitted, petitioners no.2 to 5 were owners of flats constructed by petitioner no.1 in pursuance of sale deed - Annexures - D series. On 24.10.2024, respondent no. 2 issued notice to petitioner no. 1 to show- cause against disconnection of power supply on ground that construction put up was illegal, without obtaining change of land-use, without approval of building plan and obtaining licence. It was submitted, notice stated that it was in pursuance of proceedings held before Tahsildar, Yelahanka and direction issued by this Court in WP no.15378/2024 disposed of on 01.07.2024, to take action as per said proceedings. But, on verification with Tahsildar, Yelahanka, petitioners were issued with endorsement stating that no proceedings as referred to in Annexure-G were held. Consequently, direction obtained in WP no.15378/2024 were by misrepresentation. It was further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35505 WP No. 6782 of 2025 submitted, though petitioners no.2 to 5 were also owners having purchased apartments, respondent no.2 had not issued any notice to them and therefore notice at Annexure-G was liable to be quashed. 3. Heard counsel and perused material on record. 4. From above petitioners' grievance against notice issued by respondent no. 2 is on limited ground. Firstly, that notice was not issued to petitioners no.2 to 5 herein, and secondly, proceedings referred to in notice were found false. 5. Insofar as first ground that notice was not issued to petitioners no.2 to 5, even if tenable, admittedly, said petitioners' now have constructive knowledge of Annexure-G. It is seen, petitioner no.1 has filed objections, as per Annexure - H dated 12.02.2025. 6. Even, petitioners no.2 to 5 could file objections to notice urging all contentions urged herein and respondent no.2 could consider same and pass appropriate orders, keeping in mind directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3767. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35505 WP No. 6782 of 2025 7. In view of above, writ petition is disposed of by directing petitioners no.2 to 5 to treat Annexure-G as shown- cause notice issued to them, permit them to file objections within a period of three weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter respondent no.2 is directed to consider objection of petitioners no.2 to 5 along with objections filed by petitioner no.1 in accordance with law. and taking note of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Barjatya's case and pass appropriate orders thereon within further period of three weeks in accordance with law. Needless to state that result of consideration to be informed to petitioners. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43