- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31600 WP No. 6481 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 6481 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SRI S.M. PUTTARAJU, S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.481, 1ST 'F' CROSS, 3RD STAGE, 8TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560079. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SUNDARESH G., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REGISTERED AT CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) K2, SUB DIVISION, BESCOM, HEROHALLI, SYNDICATE BANK LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 091. 3. SMT. B.M. SAVITHRAMMA W/O SRI. B. BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.378, 8TH MAIN ROAD, A BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31600 WP No. 6481 of 2023 2ND STAGE, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU - 560 055. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH; SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PH)] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 17.02.2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN LETTER NO.AEE/ELE/AE(T)/K2/2022-23/3736, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-S AND ALLOW THIS WP TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION IS 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 for following reliefs: "1. Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent in letter no.AEE/Ele/AE(T)/K2/2022-23/3736, produced as Annexure-S and allow this writ petition, to meet the ends of justice and etc." 2. Sri Sundaresh G., learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of extent of 4 Acres 20 guntas in Sy.no.47/6 of Karihobanahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, after purchasing it under registered Sale Deed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31600 WP No. 6481 of 2023 dated 12.10.2011. Under orders dated 13.03.2014, 14.07.2014 and 02.03.2015 produced at Annexures - B, C and D respectively, it was got converted for residential purposes. It was submitted, husband of respondent no.3 - D. Boregowda had filed W.P.no.49745/2019 challenging order dated 27.05.2019 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, in Revision Petition no.590/2017-18 upholding entry of name of petitioner insofar as above mentioned land. In said petition, he had undertaken not to put-up any construction. It was alleged, he had later created bogus documents of title in favour of respondent no.3 herein and based on same, they began alienating portions of property to third parties. Thereafter, one Raghupati claiming to be her GPA holder filed O.S.no.630/2022, O.S.no.639/2022 and O.S.no.654/2022 against petitioner herein in respect of alleged industrial plots, before Vacation Courts and obtained ex-parte ad-interim injunction. It was submitted, on appearance and petitioner moving application for vacating interim order, trial Court on 13.06.2022 modified it directing both parties to maintain status-quo with regard to property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31600 WP No. 6481 of 2023 3. Immediately thereafter on 14.06.2022, respondent no.3 filed applications before respondents no.1 and 2 for power supply. On 15.09.2022, petitioner filed objection against same producing material including orders passed by Courts. In meanwhile, suppressing order of status-quo passed in W.P.no.49745/2019, respondent no.3 filed W.P.no.522/2023 without arraying petitioner as party and obtained direction for consideration of her application for power connection. Weighed by same and ignoring material furnished by petitioner, respondent no.2 passed power supply sanction order on 17.02.2023 in favour of respondent no.3 as per Annexure - S. 4. Assailing same, it was contended as per order of conversion of land-use at Annexures - B, C and D respectively, user was changed to residential, respondent no.3 had sought to utilize it illegally for industrial purposes. Apart from above, respondent no.2 also ignored fact that land in question was embroiled in litigation and suffered interim orders. Despite same, respondent no.2 had passed impugned order sanctioning power supply to respondent no.3. Therefore, impugned order at Annexure-S was liable to be quashed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31600 WP No. 6481 of 2023 5. On other hand, Sri H.V. Devaraju, panel counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for respondent no.3 opposed petition. Counsel for respondent no.3 submitted, respondent no.3 had filed Civil Suits against petitioner herein and obtained orders of temporary injunction recognizing her possession over land in question. Even though petitioner had filed application for vacation of interim injunction, trial Court modified order of injunction and directed to maintain status-quo. Said order would neither cast doubt about possession of respondent no.3 nor substantiate possession of plaintiff. Therefore, impugned order was fully justified and do not call for interference. 6. Heard, learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 7. While petitioner's challenge against impugned order at Annexure-S, passed by respondent no.2 for sanctioning power supply is on ground that it ignored said land was got converted for residential use only and not for industrial purposes as sought to be used by respondent no.3 and on ground that in pending Civil Suits, Court had vacated order of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31600 WP No. 6481 of 2023 temporary injunction obtained by respondent no.3. It is seen, while passing impugned order, respondent no.2 took note of fact that respondent no.3 had filed nine applications for sanction of power supply namely to Industrial Sheds/Plots no.33 to 36 and 40 to 44. It noted that in respect of same, respondent no.3 had filed O.S.nos.630/2022, 639/2022 and 654/2022, wherein an order of temporary injunction was granted in her favour against petitioner. It referred to Clauses- 4 and 7 of General Procedure and provisions of KERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2004, which provided that on proof of ownership of premises and occupancy, sanction for power supply could be granted. It was noted filing of Civil Suits and order of temporary injunction favoured respondent no.3 in this regard. Registration Certificate with Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, was also in favour of respondent no.3. It observed licencee could not decide rights of parties with regard to property in question and proceeded to pass order. 8. Admittedly, respondent no.2 was either not apprise of order modifying of subsequent order directing parties to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31600 WP No. 6481 of 2023 maintain status-quo or of land use. It has also not examined whether applicant would satisfy mandatory requirements stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Anr. v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, before sanctioning power supply. 9. Though, learned counsel for respondent no.3 sought to rely on observations of this Court in W.P.no.55716/2017 [NC:2024:KHC:404] in paras.no.31.11 and 31.12, same would have to yield to directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above that only on satisfaction of compliances with requirements of law with regard to putting up of constructions in accordance with law, authorities were to permit availing of services. 10. In view of above, Writ Petition is disposed of quashing impugned order at Annexure-S and directing consideration afresh by respondent no.2 after providing opportunity to petitioner and respondent no.3 to vindicate their respective contentions, examine compliances as directed in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31600 WP No. 6481 of 2023 para-21 in Rajendra Kumar's case (supra), and thereafter to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. 11. Petitioner/respondent no.3 are permitted to submit their respective claims and supporting material before respondent no.2 within three weeks from today, including insofar as compliances mandated to be examined by Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above. Thereafter respondent no.2 to pass appropriate orders thereon taking note of observations made hereinabove, within four weeks thereafter, by assigning proper reasons. 12. Until then, it would be appropriate to direct respondent no.2 not to disrupt power supply in terms of order at Annexure-S, which would be subject to outcome of consideration by respondent no.2. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45