- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33423 WP No. 13275 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13275 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MURALI KRISHNA REDDY KUSANI, S/O LATE SRI. K. HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SMT. VISALAKSHI. K. W/O SRI.MURALI KRISHNA REDDY KUSANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A NO.C-206, INNOVATIVE AQUAFRONT APPARTMENTS, DODDANAKKUNDI, BANGALORE-560 037. …PETITIONERS (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 CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33423 WP No. 13275 of 2025 MAHANAGAR PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALURU-560 002. 3. THE BANGALORE ELECTERCITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001. 4. THE ASSISSTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER S-7, ASHWATH NAGARA, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU -560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., AGA FOR R1; SRI B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI LIKITH R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 31/12/2024, BEARING NO. A.E.E.(E)/S-7/A.E. (THA)/2024-25/3639 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. 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:33423 WP No. 13275 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Writ petition is filed challenging impugned notice dated 31.12.2024 bearing no.AEE (e)/S-7/A-E (tha)/2024-25/3639 issued by respondent n.4 at Annexure - E. 2. Sri Srinivasa V, learned counsel, for petitioners submitted, petitioners were owners of site no.B-63, old CMC Khata no.489, BBMP Khata serial no.202/1500/319/26-63, present Khata no.202/1500/site no.B-63, 34, having purchased it under registered sale deed dated 02.11.2022 at Annexure-A. Subsequently, their names were mutated revenue records and they were paying taxes. As they intended to put up residential building in site, they applied for and obtained sanction of building plan and licence from BBMP as per Annexures - D and D1 respectively. Thereafter, they completed construction as per sanctioned plan, availed water/sanitary connection and occupied it, when they were issued with notice dated 31.12.2024 at Annexure-E. It was submitted in similar circumstances, this Court had granted interim order in W.P.no.4051/2025 at Annexure - F and directed restoration of electricity. On similar direction, power supply was restored. It - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33423 WP No. 13275 of 2025 was submitted, disconnection of electricity was without opportunity to petitioners and therefore, liable to be quashed on ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 3. On other hand, Smt.Waheeda MM, learned AGA appearing for respondent no.1 and Sri BS Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed petition. It was submitted, as admitted, petitioner was served with order for demolition dated 28.01.2025 together with provisional order and confirmation order dated 03.10.2024. Therefore, action of respondents would be in tune with directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3767, and only after petitioners satisfied that their construction was in accordance with law, power could not be restored. On said ground sought dismissal of petition. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 5. From above, it is seen power supply as per particulars provided to petitioners' premises, by respondents no.3 and 4 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33423 WP No. 13275 of 2025 are not in dispute. Apparently, disruption of power supply to petitioners' premises is at instance of respondent no.4 and notice at Annexure-E issued to petitioners. Same is challenged in this petition. 6. From above, electric connection provided to premises as per particulars provided is not in dispute. As stated, disruption of power supply to petitioner's premises is at instance of respondent no.2, who appears to have hitherto issued provisional order followed by confirmation order and which are stated to be challenged in appeal, which was pending. In view of above, as allegation against construction of petitioner being in violation of building plan or bylaws has not attained finality, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition by directing respondents no.3 and 4 to continue power supply to petitioner's premises subject to outcome of appeal and directing respondent no.2 to conclude Appeal in expeditious manner. 7. In terms of above, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.2 to decide Appeal in accordance with law expeditiously and directing respondents no.3 and 4 to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33423 WP No. 13275 of 2025 restore power supply to petitioner's premises subject to outcome in Appeal, by paying consumption charges to respondents no.3 and 4 . Needless to state that respondent no.2 to inform result of appeal to respondents no.1 and 2, who would thereafter be at liberty to take further action in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47