- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32509 WP No. 10810 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10810 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: G.N. VENKATESHWARALU S/O NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO 1301, 7TH CROSS, DEFENDANT BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, BANGALORE - 48 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, 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 COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001 3. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32509 WP No. 10810 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER S-7 SUB-DIVISION, DODDANEKKUNDI SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1/STATE SRI. B.V. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 20/03/2025 BEARING NO.AEE(E)/S7/A.E. (THA)/2024-25/5503 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNX-H TO THE WP AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging notice dated 20.03.2025 issued by respondent no.4 at Annexure-H, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri.Srinivas V., learned counsel appearing petitioner submitted that, petitioner is owner of Site no.777, bearing BBMP Khatha no.777, situated in layout formed by ‘Aircraft Employees Co-operative Society Limited’ in Sy.nos. 115/1, 116 to 121. 122/1 and 2, 124/1, 3, 125 and 131/1, 3 of Kundalahalli Village; Sy.nos.39 to 43 of Chinnappanahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli; and Sy.nos.8 and 73 of Tubarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32509 WP No. 10810 of 2025 3. It was submitted, petitioner purchased said Site under registered sale deed dated 11.09.2020. At Annexure-A, and was put in possession. Khata stands in his name as per Annexure-B. Since petitioner intended to put up a residential building on said site, he obtained approval of Building Plan from respondent no.2, as per Annexures-C and D. Thereafter, he completed construction by January 2024. 4. It was submitted, though petitioner had completed construction in compliance with approved plan, respondent no.2 passed a provisional order dated 27.02.2025 alleging certain deviations. Petitioner replied to same as per Annexures-E and F. Without considering said reply, a confirmation order as per Annexure-G, came to be passed on 25.03.2025. 5. It was submitted that petitioner had filed an appeal against order of confirmation before respondent no.2 in Appeal No.64/2025 and obtained an interim order of status quo on 05.04.2023. In meanwhile, petitioner was issued a notice at Annexure-H and power supply to premises was disrupted. 6. It was submitted that since reason stated for disruption was alleged deviation in relation to which petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32509 WP No. 10810 of 2025 had preferred an appeal and obtained an order of status quo, disrupting power supply in pursuance of Annexure-H by respondent no.4 was not justified. Therefore, petitioner sought for quashing of same. 7. On other hand, Smt.Vaheeda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1, Sri B.V. Muralidhar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri H.V. Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 opposed petition. 8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 admitted passing of provisional order, confirmation order and order of status quo in appeal. Learned counsel for respondent-BESCOM submitted that impugned Annexure-H was only a notice calling upon petitioner to submit his reply and if such reply was submitted, same would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed thereon. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition papers on record 10. From above, it is seen that petitioner's challenge against Annexure-H is on ground that reasons stated therein by respondents no.3 and 4, namely, construction in deviation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32509 WP No. 10810 of 2025 approved Building Plan was in flux as appeal was pending and an interim order of status quo granted. Admittedly, respondents no.3 and 4/BESCOM contend that action was initiated as per intimation received from respondent no.2. 11. In view of admitted pendency of appeal filed by petitioner against order of confirmation, and as issuance of Annexure-H is only at instance of BBMP, it would be appropriate to keep Annexure-H in abeyance until conclusion of proceedings in Appeal No.64/2025 filed by petitioner before respondent no.2 and thereafter, in case of any further intimation by respondent no.2, respondents no.3 and 4 may proceed with Annexure-H. It is further clarified that, until then, respondents no.3 and 4 are directed not to disrupt power supply on grounds mentioned at Annexure-H. In meanwhile, petitioner is reserved liberty to file objections to Annexure-H. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8