- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35322 WP No. 15473 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. 15473 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: M/S JOS ALUKKAS INDIA PVT LTD., FORMERLY KNOW AS ALUKKAS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REG OFFICE AT NO.8/439, ALUKKAS JEWELLERY CORPORATE OFFICE BUILDING, FATHIMA NAGAR, PO EAST FORT, THRISSUR (DT), KERALA - 680 005. CURRENTLY HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT NO.4/2(NO.16/2), 9TH MAIN ROAD 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 011. REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. BIJU T.L., …PETITIONER (BY SRI GOVARDHAN REDDY J.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDPASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, COMPANY LIMITED BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE AT BESCOM, K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. MR. ARAVIND M S., S/O SRINIVAS M.V., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35322 WP No. 15473 of 2025 R/AT NO.52, MEGARAMAKKI, NARASIMHARAJAPURA, CHICKMAGALUR, KARNATAKA 5777112. 3. MR. PRABHAKARA U R C/O RANGASWAMY AGED 42 YEARS R/AT 517/9, 2ND FLOOR, KUSHI APARTMENT, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR VTC BANGALORE SOUTH, P O BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE 560 085. 4. MSR. JYOTHI SRIDHAR W/O SRIDHAR M K AGED 46 YEARS R/AT NO.122, GODA KRISHN KR LAYOUT, 20TH CROSS J P NAGAR, 6TH PHASE BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 078. 5. 6. MR. SRIDHARA M K S/O M N KRISHNA IYENGAR, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.122 GODA KRISHNA, KR LAYOUT, 20TH CROSS, J P NAGAR 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE 560 078. M/s. WEST INN BANGALORE (P) LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.255, 1ST FLOOR, 36TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI DEEPAK BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6; R4 & R5 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35322 WP No. 15473 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO THE SAID PREMISES I.E ENTIRE GROUND PLUS FIRST FLOORS HAVING NUMBERED AS NO. 4/2 (NO.16/2), PID NO.59-17-4/2 AND NO.4/3 PID NO.59-17-4/3, NEW PID NO. 167-WO-189-16 APPROXIMATELY A TOTAL 7000 SQ.FT OF BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, AT PRESENT SITUATED AT 9TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE IMMEDIATELY AND FORTHWITH AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT TO DISCONNECT THE ELECTRICITY UNTIL HE EVICTS THE SAID PREMISES AND KEEP THE CONNECTION INTACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Writ petition is filed seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents to restore electricity connection to premises i.e. Ground + First Floors of property no.4/2(No.16/2), PID no.59-17-4/2 & no.4/3 PID no.59-17- 4/3, New PID no.167-WO-189-16 approximately 7000 sq.ft. of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, at present situated at 9th Main Road, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore and not to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35322 WP No. 15473 of 2025 disconnect electricity unless petitioner is evicted from premises in accordance with law. 2. Sri Govardhan Reddy J.S., learned counsel appearing for Sri Chandpasha, advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner was tenant of premises under lease deed dated 05.01.2021 executed by respondent no.6. It was submitted in terms of lease deed, petitioner was in possession and running a jewellery shop in premises. For said tenement, power supply was obtained from respondent no.1. It was submitted though petitioner had continued as a lessee and had not acceded to demand for higher rent by respondent no.6. Therefore he had instigated respondent no.1 to threaten petitioner with disruption of power and later power was disrupted on several occasions as indicated in Annexure-D - Photographs. Relying upon decision of High Court of Punjab in case of Om Prakash v. Balkar Singh and Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3733 and decision of this Court in W.P.no.19251/2022, disposed of on 07.08.2024, learned counsel submitted that action by respondents in disruption of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35322 WP No. 15473 of 2025 power would be illegal and therefore, sought for allowing writ petition. 3. On other hand, Sri H.V. Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has filed affidavit of concerned Assistant Executive Engineer stating that building in question was a multi-storied building and power supply was serviced on 15.12.2023 with installation bearing RR.no.2143949921 (1SHT314) with a sanctioned load of 225 KV in name of M.S. Sriharsha R. Devaraj under HT2b tariff. It was further stated that at no point of time there was any disconnection of power supply to said meter by BESCOM or its officers leaving no scope for prayer as sought against BESCOM. It was further stated that in case of any dispute between landlord and tenant, writ petition as filed would not be tenable and petitioner would require to sort out same before appropriate forum. 4. Sri Deepak Basavaraj, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 6 while opposing writ petition would submit that even said respondents had not disconnected power supply and seeks dismissal of writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35322 WP No. 15473 of 2025 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record. 6. From above it is seen, petitioner's main grievance espoused herein is against disconnection of power supply without due process with law. Though petitioner relies on decisions to contend that neither landlord nor BESCOM authorities could disconnect power supply, decisions are rendered in different facts and are distinguishable. 7. In instant case, petitioner alleges disconnection is by BESCOM. But, taking note of contents of affidavit, assertions of official of respondent no.1 that there is no disruption of power supply from BESCOM, there would be no basis for same. Thus, writ petition as filed would not be tenable. Reserving liberty to sort out differences if any with respondents no.2 to 6 before appropriate forum, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18