- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 26892 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SMT. LATHA V., W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT-NO.12/292, 1ST CROSS, THINDLU, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.S. BYRE REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, JALAHALLI DIVISION IS NO. 22, MVR PERIODS DEFENCE LAYOUT, DEVI CIRCLE, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, (COM. O ... C-9 TATANAGAR SUB DIVISION), VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, (ELE.) BESCOM, VIRUPAKSHAPURA DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 092. 4. THE JOINT ZONAL COMMISSIONER, THE BBMP, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 092. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025 5. THE HEALTH OFFICER, THE BBMP, YELAHANKA DIVISION, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LOKESHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 11.07.2025 i.e., ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an application was filed for impleading Hon'ble Lokayukta, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Health Officer and Sri R. Shantha Kumar. But, consideration of same would not be necessary, since petitioner's grievance against notice at Annexure-A. Said notice would mention about issuance of an earlier notice to petitioner which was not received and in any case, petitioner had thereafter filed reply to Annexure-A as per Annexure-P and same was not yet considered. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025 2. Learned counsel would therefore submit that petitioner would be satisfied if petition is disposed of directing consideration of petitioner's reply. 3. In view of above, matter was heard and taken up for disposal. 4. Challenging notice dated 11.07.2025 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed. 5. Sri M.S. Byre Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vijaya Shekara Gowda, advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner along with her son were owners of property bearing Sy.no.74, BBMP Khata no.1039/45/74/1P, measuring 28400 sq.ft., situated at Thindlu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. In said property, petitioner had constructed commercial building and leased it out to Sri Shantha Kumar R. It was submitted, in said premises, Shantha Kumar R was running car washing service station. For said premises, petitioner had obtained power supply from respondents no.1 to 3 with installation bearing RR no.C8CLG7589. It was submitted, tenant of petitioner was paying electricity consumption charges to respondents as per bills raised. Likewise, petitioner had also - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025 obtained water supply connection and paying bills as per Annexures-N and N1 respectively. 6. Such being case, an Advocate by name Jagadish instigated authorities to take action against petitioner. Therefore, impugned notice was issued to petitioner. Petitioner submitted reply as per Annexure-P on 16.07.2025. It was submitted that petitioner had let-out premises to tenant and in case of violation committed by tenant in running commercial activity either due to non obtaining of license or otherwise, petitioner, who was owner of premises and who had obtained electricity connection for said premises, could not be penalized by disruption of power connection. On said ground sought for quashing of Annexure-A. 7. On other hand, Sri Lokesha K., learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5 sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, since power connection stood in petitioner's name, notice was issued to petitioner. It was submitted, based on complaint received by Hon'ble Lokayukta and Karnataka State Police Control Board, a report was called for from BBMP authorities. In pursuance of same, inspection was conducted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025 and it was noted that a car wash facility being in petitioner's premises, without obtaining trade license from BBMP. An intimation was given by BBMP to petitioner. It was submitted, petitioner was also notified about failure to provide effluent treatment plant. On failure to submit reply, notice at Annexure- A was issued, same was in accordance with law and no interference was called for. 8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record. 9. From above petitioner's grievance against notice at Annexure-A is that in case petitioner's tenant had committed any violation, authorities would be required to take action against violator and not against petitioner, who was owner of premises. Petitioner had submitted reply to notice which was not considered. If it is so, it would only be fair that respondents consider petitioner's reply before taking action in pursuance of notice at Annexure-A. 10. Perusal of reply submitted by petitioner at Annexure-P would reveal that petitioner in OS no.1066/2025 filed by one Smt.Munirathnamma, an interim order of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025 injunction was granted in respect of petitioner's property and therefore, petitioner was unable to take any action insofar as effluent treatment plant. 11. In case there is any suit pending against property in question and order of injunction operating, same cannot be employed by petitioner to perpetuate violation insofar as premises in question as noted by authorities and action initiated by them. Injunction inter parte, cannot come in way of functioning of authorities, unless authorities are injuncted against taking action. 12. Under such circumstances, it would be open for respondents to continue taking action until petitioner or his tenant report compliance of usage of premises as per law. With above observations, writ petition is disposed of. In view of above order, I.A.no.1/2025 stands disposed of as unnecessary. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19