- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33323 WP No. 11923 of 2020 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. 11923 OF 2020 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: MRS. G. MANGAMMA, W/O LATE C MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 235, 7TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HIG COLONY, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM, E-6, INDIRA NAGAR, SUB DIVISION OF BESCOM, DOMLUR AREA, BENGALURU - 560 038. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, KARNATAKA FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, #1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, HERMIT COLONY, SIVANCHETTI GARDENS, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., AGA FOR R3) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33323 WP No. 11923 of 2020 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 29.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 18.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 ANNEXURE-N. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE (1) NOTICE DATED 29.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND (2) NOTICE DATED 18.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE R3 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N) AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISCONNECT THE POWER SUPPLY TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETITION AND STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID NOTICES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. 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 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: a) Quash the Notice bearing No.AEE/AET/E6- SD/20-21/1923-26 dated 29.09.2020 issued by the respondent no.2 (Annexure- A); b) Quash the Notice bearing No.GBC(2)090 / 2019-20 (KSFES/1764/2019) dated 18.09.2019 issued by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-N) and etc. 2. Smt.Sinchana M.R., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on death of petitioner's husband Sri C. Muniswamy, who was allotted site no.618, HAL II Stage - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33323 WP No. 11923 of 2020 Extension under Sale Deed dated 18.08.1986 at Annexure-B, petitioner inherited same. With intention to put-up construction on said site, petitioner had applied for and obtained plan sanction for commercial/residential building, from BBMP. Petitioner was permitted to put-up Basement, Ground Floor, 1st Floor, 2nd Floor and Terrace Floor as per Annexure-F. It was submitted, petitioner completed construction and obtained power supply from respondents no.1 and 2 with Meter bearing RR.no.E6HT225, as per Annexure-G and let out building. It was submitted, petitioner was making regular payment of power consumption bills raised by respondents 1 and 2. Such being case, respondents informed petitioner about intent to disconnect power supply on ground that petitioner had not obtained 'no objection' from Fire and Emergency Services Department. It was submitted, petitioner had filed O.S.no.26590/2019 before Civil Court for perpetual injunction against proposed action by respondents. However, said suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter, respondents no.1 and 2 issued disconnection notice dated 29.09.2020 at Annexure A. 3. It was submitted, though action sought to be taken against petitioner was in pursuance of Notification bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33323 WP No. 11923 of 2020 no.HD 33 SFB 2011, Bangalore, dated 07.07.2011 issued by Government of Karnataka alleging that petitioner's building was a 'High Rise' building and which required 'no objection certificate' from Fire and Emergency Services Department, said notification did not provide definition of High Rise building. Under such circumstances, initiation of action by respondents based on same would not be tenable. On said grounds sought for allowing writ petition. 4. Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 on other hand submitted that disconnection notice at Annexure-A was in pursuance of notice at Annexure-N and issued after dismissal of suit filed by petitioner against respondents. It was submitted, petitioner's contention that notification dated 07.07.2011 did not define High Rise building, would not be available after issuance of notification on 24.03.2023 inserting Sub-Sections (3) and (4) in Section 13 of Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964, ('Act', for short) along with an Explanation containing definition of a High Rise building as 'a building of 21 meters or above in height'. Therefore, contentions urged in writ petition would not be tenable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33323 WP No. 11923 of 2020 5. In response, learned counsel for petitioner filed a memo producing copy of valuation report as well as notification dated 24.03.2023. It was submitted, measurement of building in report showed it's height at 16.2 meters contradicting measurement of building stated by respondents in impugned notice at Annexure-N. It was submitted, if petitioner's building did not qualify as a High Rise building, action initiated by respondents would be contrary to law. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition. 6. Heard, learned counsel and perused writ petition. 7. From above, though petitioner has urged other contentions against Annexure-N that it was not served on petitioner, petitioner's contention that building would not qualify as a High Rise building would require examination. There is no dispute about notification dated 07.07.2011 mandating requirement of obtaining no objection from Fire and Emergency Services Department, in case of High Rise building. But said notification does not define High Rise building. 8. Notification dated 24.03.2023 issued recently inserts by amendment to Section 13 of Act, Explanation - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33323 WP No. 11923 of 2020 defining building of 21 meters or more in height as a High Rise building. Since petitioner is disputing assertion by respondents about height of petitioner's building at 21 meters or above, it would be appropriate to direct respondent no.3 authorities to inspect petitioner’s building once again in presence of petitioner to determine its height for purposes of deciding whether petitioner building would qualify as a High Rise building. Only in case petitioner's building is found to be 21 meters or above, respondents would be at liberty to insist for obtaining no objection from respondent no.3. In such case, petitioner to obtain same and submit to respondents no.1 and 2 within two months. It would be needless to observe that in case petitioner's building would not qualify as a 'High Rise' building, respondents would not be justified in demanding 'no objection certificate' issued by respondent no.3. With above observations, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23