- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29371 WP No. 22554 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 22554 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHIVA PRAKASH VEMA, S/O LATE SUBBARAYUDU VEMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 2. MRS. SAILA KUMARI VEMA, W/O MR. SHIVA PRAKASH VEMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/A VILLA NO.10, ALLIANCE 10, DOWNING, KANNAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 067. …PETITIONERS [BY SRI RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO. 236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HEAD OFFICE AT HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29371 WP No. 22554 of 2025 BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., 4TH EAST SUB-DIVISION BESCOM, WHITFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 (PH); SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH); SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 (PH)] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE NO AEE(EI)AE(TA)/PU4/2024-25/9274-77, DATED 21.03.2025, BEARING ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE POWER SUPPLY TO TOWER NO. 4ETP29346 (ACCOUNT ID 5787454040), PLOT NO.25, AND NEW BBMP KHATHA NO. 938/890/1125/22, OLD KHATHA NO. 1125/22, KNOWN AS WHITE ROSE AND SITUATED AT PATTANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITEFIELD PANCHYAT, K.R PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, NOW BANGALORE EAST TALUK, COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF BBMP. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Notice bearing No. AEE{EI}AE{TA}/PU4i/2024-25/9274-77 dated 21.03.2025, issued by 4th Respondent, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29371 WP No. 22554 of 2025 vide Annexure-K and direct the Respondents to restore power supply to Tower No.4ETP29346 {Account ID 5787454040}, Plot No. 25, & New BBMP Khatha No. 938/890/1125/22, Old Khatha No. 1125/22, known as White Rose and situated at Pattandur Agrahara, Whitefield Panchyat, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now Bangalore East Taluk, comes under the Jurisdiction of BBMP; b) Pass any such other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice." 2. Sri Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are owners of property bearing Plot no.25, and new BBMP Khatha no.938/890/1125/22, old Khatha no.1125/22, situated at Pattandur Agrahara, Whitefield Panchyath, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now Bangalore East Taluk, having purchased it under Sale Deed at Annexure-A. Thereafter, they have paid tax upto date. It was submitted, petitioners applied for and obtained sanction of building plan and licence as depicted as Annexures-D, E, F, F1 and F2 and obtained temporary electricity connection from respondents no.3 and 4 and put up construction. Such being case, petitioners were shocked to receive impugned order at - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29371 WP No. 22554 of 2025 Annexure-K ordering disconnection of power supply to petitioners' building. It was submitted, said order was not preceded with any notice served on petitioners. It was submitted, petitioners have completed construction of building and interior works were in progress and for which power supply was required. It was submitted, petitioners were senior citizens and temporarily residing in rented house and would be put to great hardship in case of non-restoration of power supply. On said grounds, sought for allowing writ petition. 3. Learned AGA for respondent no.1, Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 opposed writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 would submit that impugned order was passed on receipt of intimation by Zonal Commissioner, BBMP, as per reference no.1 in Annexure-K, prohibiting electricity supply to buildings being constructed without sanction plan as well as buildings constructed in violation of sanction plan. On receipt of said communication, spot inspection report was obtained from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29371 WP No. 22554 of 2025 jurisdictional Assistant Engineer and after finding construction to be in violation of sanctioned plan, impugned order at Annexure-K was passed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that Annexures-D to F2 would indicate that petitioners had obtained sanction plan and proceeded with construction. Therefore, intimation of Zonal Commissioner, BBMP, would not apply to petitioners. While, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 would submit that photographs at Annexures-J and J1 would indicate that petitioners have put up stilt ground + 5 floors, apparently in violation of santioned building plan. Therefore, impugned order was justified. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused writ petition records. 7. From above, it is noted that principle ground on which order at Annexure-K is challenged is that it was not preceded with any show cause notice and as such, would be in violation of order passed by this Court in W.P.no.6897/2025 decided on 14.07.2025. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29371 WP No. 22554 of 2025 8. Admittedly, impugned order at Annexure-K, does not refer to any notice having been issued to petitioners, thereby rendering it unsustainable when disconnection of power supply would impose severe civil consequences on petitioners compliance with principles of natural justice before disconnecting power supply would be required. As order impugned falls short of such requirement, it would call for interference. Hence, following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) Impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by respondent no.4 at Annexure-K is quashed. (iii) However, in facts and circumstances of this case, it shall be treated as show case notice by petitioners and objections, if any, to be filed before respondent no.4 within two weeks from today. (iv) If same is filed within time indicated, respondent no.4 shall consider petitioners' objections and pass appropriate orders, in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29371 WP No. 22554 of 2025 accordance with law, within two weeks thereafter. (v) Until then, respondents to restore temporary power connection to petitioners' building subject to payment of advance consumption charges etc as may be required. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28