- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32952 WP No. 16631 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 16631 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: M/S. PRIME INFRA, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, FLAT NO.301, 3RD FLOOR, PRIME PARADISE APARTMENT, SITE NO. 404/A AND B, PRASANTH NAGAR, KITHAGANUR MAIN ROAD, OPP. TO ALLURI ONE VILLAS COMPOUND, BENGALURU - 560 049, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS, MR. SUNIL KUMAR REDDY M., S/O LATE M.POORNA CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32952 WP No. 16631 of 2025 O AND M 4TH EAST SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, WHITEFIELD, HOPFARM, BENGALURU - 560 048. 3. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M UNIT, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, VARTHUR, BENGALURU-560 087. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LOKESHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 31.05.2025 IN NO.SA.KA.IM(VI)/SA.IM(TA)/POO-4/2024-25/493 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 - ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO RESPONDENT NO.3, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE ELECTRICITY TO TOWER NO.4ETP29817 OF PETITIONER FORTHWITH. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32952 WP No. 16631 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging notice dated 31.05.2025 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-K and to restore electricity connection to meter bearing RR.no.4ETP29817, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for petitioner submitted petitioner is owner of site no.95/1A, BBMP Khata no.1575/95/1/156 situated at Varthur village and Hobli, Bengaluru South, measuring 8 guntas. Said property was purchased under Sale Deed dated 11.09.2023 at Annexure-A. Thereafter, petitioner got Khata changed in his name, obtained E-khata and was paying taxes to BBMP. Petitioner had put up construction and obtained temporary electricity connection for same through meter bearing RR.no.4ETP29817. It was submitted, petitioner was paying consumption charges to BESCOM. However, respondent no.2 issued impugned notice to petitioner to show cause against disruption of power on ground that construction was put up without obtaining sanction plan. Petitioner was called upon to produce 'No objection certificate' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32952 WP No. 16631 of 2025 from BBMP within 7 days. It was submitted, prior to issuance of notice, there was no inspection or enquiry conducted to determine construction put up by petitioner was in violation. Therefore, same is required to be quashed. It was further submitted, notice was never served upon petitioner. Therefore, disruption of power supply was in violation of principles of natural justice. On above grounds, sought allowing writ petition. 3. Learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 opposed writ petition. It was submitted, on receipt of complaints about construction put up by petitioner was without obtaining sanction plan and in violation of building by-laws, inspection was conducted and notice under Section 313 of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 ('Act' for short) was issued. It was submitted, same would also be in tune with directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767. On said grounds, sought dismissal of writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32952 WP No. 16631 of 2025 4. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 5. From above, it is seen petitioner's challenge against Annexure-K is on ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice. As submitted by learned counsel for respondents, Annexure-K is only a notice. Petitioner had not stated about having filed reply to same. Even if it were not served upon petitioner, on date of issuance, at least after receipt of Annexure-K, petitioner ought to have submitted reply. 6. In view of above and taking note of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case, instead of retaining writ petition, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition by permitting petitioner to file objections/reply and directing respondents to consider same and pass appropriate orders thereafter. 7. Hence, writ petition is disposed of. Respondents are directed to permit petitioner to submit objections/reply to Annexure-K within a period of 15 days from today, along with necessary documents and keeping in mind directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32952 WP No. 16631 of 2025 On receipt of same, respondent no.2 to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Until then, power supply to petitioner's premises through meter bearing RR.no.4ETP29817 is directed to be continued subject to payment of advance consumption charges, as may be required. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG/AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18