- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30351 WP No. 11924 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 11924 OF 2020 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ABDUL RAUF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ZIAUDDIN, NO.31, 1ST 'A' MAIN ROAD, NEW GURUPPANAPALYA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGLAURU-560 029. 2. SRI.MOHAMMED AJAZ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ZIAUDDIN NO.31, 1ST 'A' MAIN ROAD, NEW GURRAPPANAPALYA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029. …PETITIONERS [BY SRI IRSHAD AHMED K., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REP BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (EL) ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGLURU - 560 009. 3. THE CHAIRPERSON, KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30351 WP No. 11924 of 2020 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, RANICHANNAMMA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 4. SRI MAQSOOD AHMED SHARIF AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MOHAMED AHMED, NO.17, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, GURAPPANAPALYA, B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 (PH); SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE, FOR R2 (PH); SMT. GEETHA M., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR R4] THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.9.3.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 THAT IS THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU BETWEEN MAQSOOD AHMED SHARIFF -VS- KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED IN ANNEXURE-A, DIRECT TO THE R-2 TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS BEARING R.R.NO.4SEH32043 AND 4SEH28350 TO THE PETITIONERS HOUSE. 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:30351 WP No. 11924 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 09.03.2020 passed by respondent no.1 - Additional Chief Secretary, Energy Department at Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed. 2. Principal ground on which order at Annexure-A is questioned would not require reference to facts in detail, except to state that on 16.09.2017 one Master Muizz Ahmed Shariff went to terrace of petitioner's building to collect ball with which he was playing, when he accidentally came into contact with arcing zone of 66 KV line running over building causing non- fatal burn injuries. On account of same, petition was filed for compensation before Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, which had directed respondent no.2 herein to pay compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved thereby respondent no.2 filed W.P.no.26329/2018 before this Court. Said writ petition was disposed of on 30.08.2019 by setting aside order and remitting matter to State Government to pass a speaking order under Section 15(iii) of Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. At time of passing said order, it was specifically observed that an opportunity of hearing to parties ought to be afforded. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30351 WP No. 11924 of 2020 In pursuance of same, impugned order at Annexure-A came to be passed. It was submitted, while passing order at Annexure- A, respondent no.1 determined compensation payable to victim respondent no.4 herein by respondent no.2, but ordered said amount to be recovered from owner of building by respondent no.2. 4. Sri Irshad Ahmed K., learned counsel for petitioners submitted that said direction/order was passed behind back of petitioners without either complying with direction issued by this Court in W.P.no.26329/2018 at Annexure-B and arraying petitioners as a party to proceedings. It is trite that impugned order would impose serious civil consequences upon petitioners and as such petitioners would require to be heard before passing of orders. It is also seen that petitioners were not arrayed as a party to proceedings. Though determination of compensation payable to victim as provided under Section 15(iii) of Act is a lis between victim and KPTCL, insofar as direction issued for recovery of said amount from owner, petitioners would be a necessary party. On this ground only impugned order is liable to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30351 WP No. 11924 of 2020 5. Consequently, writ petition is allowed in part. Proceedings at Annexure-A is remitted back to respondent no.1 for purpose of hearing petitioners as to whether a direction for recovery of amount from owner of building/petitioners could be passed. It is clarified that while passing fresh order, respondent no.1 would require to give specific findings about negligence on part of petitioners for occurrence of unfortunate incident and about need for issuance of direction for recovery from petitioners alone. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41