- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33498 WP No. 15663 of 2023 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. 15663 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. J.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE B.A. JAYARAM, 2. J. SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, D/O LATE B.A. JAYARAM, 3. J.UMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE B.A. JAYARAM, 4. J.VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE B.A. JAYARAM, ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF NO.1/2, GOWER ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.PUTHIGE R.RAMESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.LAKSHMI S HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE LECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33498 WP No. 15663 of 2023 K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL CUM CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(F AND C). 2. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.LTD., NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE, HINKAL POST, MYSORE-570 001 BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) O AND M SUB-DIVISION, CESCOM, SRI HARSHA ROAD, N.R.MOHALLA, SUB-DIVISION NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE, HINKAL POST, MYSORE - 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 19.06.2023 FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO. BESCOM/DT/CGM(F AND C)/GM/BC-28/23-24/395-405 AS AT ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,13,421/- DEPOSITED IN RESPECT OF THE POWER SUPPLY VIDE RR NO.P-3544 TO THE PREMISES HOTEL SAPNA AT MYSORE AND ETC., THIS WRIT 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33498 WP No. 15663 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 19.06.2023 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-H and for writ of mandamus directing respondents to refund amount of Rs.2,13,421/- lying in deposit in respect of power supply through meter bearing RR no.P-3544 to premises 'Hotel Sapna' at shop no.174, opposite KSRTC depot, Bannimantapa Road, Mysuru. 2. Sri Puthige R.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Lakshmi S Holla, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, one BA Jayaram, sole proprietor of 'Hotel Sapna' died on 22.09.2004, leaving behind his wife and children-petitioners and that his wife Smt.Kamalamma also died on 04.06.2020. It was submitted, 'Hotel Sapna' was owned by petitioners' father and for which he had obtained electricity connection through meter bearing RR no.P-3544. On 18.03.1996, Vigilance Squad of respondents inspected same and allegedly found it tampered with meter and theft of energy. Based on vigilance report, power was disconnected. Sri BA Jayaram filed WP no.7898/1996 for restoration of power. On 22.03.1996, power supply was restored and thereafter, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33498 WP No. 15663 of 2023 show-cause notice dated 25.03.1996 was issued, followed by order dated 15.04.1996 observing that no reply was filed. Subsequently, demand notice calling upon petitioners' father for payment of Rs.5,44,734/- was issued. When same was questioned before this Court in WP no.14409/1996, it was quashed on ground of violation of principles of natural justice, permitting petitioners' father to file objections/reply and directing respondents to consider same. 3. Subsequently, fresh order was passed on 27.03.1997 and challenged in WP no.11725/1997, allowed on 23.06.1997 and matter remanded back. On 08.03.2004, fresh demand notice was issued in name of Sri BA Jayaram. However, he died on 22.09.2004. Petitioners questioned it in WP no.10540/2004. Even said petition was allowed as Appellate authority was found to have passed order without proper reasoning. In meanwhile, a communication was issued in name of Sri BA Jayaram alleging that petitioners' writ petition was dismissed. Same was replied. In meanwhile, respondents initiated prosecution of BA Jayaram as accused no.1 and Manager of 'Hotel Sapna', at time of inspection, as accused no.2. But it ended in order of acquittal on 06.11.2008. On - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33498 WP No. 15663 of 2023 18.04.2013, petitioners had informed death of BA Jayaram and particulars of his legal representatives as per Annexure-D. Ten years thereafter, respondent no.3 issued notice dated 13.04.2023 informing Smt.Kamalamma that appeal would be taken up. By then, Smt.Kamalamma had died. Though petitioners became aware of notice, on 21.04.2023 and sought to contest, proceedings were concluded under order at Annexure-H impugned herein. 4. It was firstly submitted, respondents were well aware of death of BA Jayaram and Smt.Kamalamma and about petitioners being his legal representatives. Despite same, impugned order was passed in name of BA Jayaram-dead person. Therefore, on said ground alone, impugned order was liable to be quashed. It was secondly submitted, respondents had failed to establish allegation of theft of power in criminal prosecution which ended in acquittal. Therefore, retention of amount deposited and continuation of proceedings against legal representatives of original owner for nearly three decades would be unjust. On said grounds, sought for allowing writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33498 WP No. 15663 of 2023 5. On other hand, Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents, while not disputing earlier litigation, would submit that upon petitioners informing particulars of death of BA Jayaram and his legal representatives, individual notices were issued to legal representatives. Since they did not participate, impugned order was passed. It was submitted, amount deposited by petitioners was in pursuance of conditional interim order and until determination of quantum of theft, same could not be refunded. On said grounds, sought dismissal of writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 7. From above, it is seen, impugned order is challenged mainly on ground that it is passed against dead person. Admittedly, BA Jayaram died on 22.09.2004. Though claimed to have issued individual notices to his legal representatives, their names are not in impugned order. On said technical ground alone, impugned order deserves to be quashed. 8. Hence, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.06.2023 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-H is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33498 WP No. 15663 of 2023 quashed and matter is remitted back, for fresh consideration. Since parties are represented and taking note of long litigation history and lapse of three decades, petitioners are directed to appear before respondent no.1 on 22.09.2025 at 11:00 A.M. without fresh notice. Taking note of peculiar facts and circumstances of case, respondent no.1 is directed to expedite disposal after exploring possibilities for amicable settlement as proceedings have stretched for more than 30 years and petitioners are legal representatives of consumer to whom demand notice was issued initially on allegation of theft of power. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32