- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35213 WP No. 27827 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 27827 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: MRS. LIDIYA SHANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SHANTHKUMAR, NO.758/84, POLICE QUARTERS, 1ST MAIN, K.G.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM, K2 HEROHALLI SUB-DIVISION, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, TUNGANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.09.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C BY CONTINUING POWER CONNECTION TILL REGULAR POWER CONNECTION IS ALLOTTED TO BUILDING AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NOT TO DISCONNECT POWER CONNECTION TO PREMISES OF PETITIONER INCLUDING ORDER AS TO COSTS. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35213 WP No. 27827 of 2024 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 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent to consider petitioner’s representation dated 10.09.2024 at Annexure-C to continue power connection till consideration of application and for direction to respondent not to disconnect power supply is allotted to petitioner’s premises. 2. Sri Rajagopal Naidu, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was a tenant under Mrs.Jayalakshmi, wife of Puttaswamy in House property bearing no.758/84, Police Quarters, 1st Main, K.G.Road, Bengaluru. It was submitted, petitioner spent Rs.3 Lakhs to complete construction and had obtained power supply from respondent. Same was however disconnected by landlord with intention to evict petitioner. Therefore, petitioner had filed O.S.no.19/2024 before I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru, against landlord and others. It was submitted, since disruption of power supply was by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35213 WP No. 27827 of 2024 landlord and as electricity was an essential service required for survival, petitioner had filed representation with respondent as per Annexure-C dated 10.09.2024 for providing power supply through fresh meter without insisting on NOC from landlord. It was alleged that same had remained without consideration. Hence, this writ petition was filed. 3. Sri HV Devaraj, learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed petition. It was submitted that even as per petitioner, disruption of power was not by respondent authorities, but by landlord. Though petitioner was seeking for writ of mandamus for consideration of representation at Annexure-C, there was no material on record to indicate that petitioner was in possession. If petitioner were to furnish records to said effect, application would be considered as per Regulation 14.03 in Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 5. As per writ petition averments, petitioner claims to be tenant of Mrs.Jayalakshmi and others in respect of Property No.758/84, Police Quarters, 7th Main, KG Road, Bengaluru. It is apparent that there is a dispute between petitioner and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35213 WP No. 27827 of 2024 landlord. Even as per petitioner's assertions in Annexure-C and pleadings in Annexure-D/plaint, disruption of power is by landlord. Despite same, petition is filed without arraying landlord as party. Even otherwise, perusal of representation at Annexure-C would indicate that same is not appended with any documents requisite for consideration for power supply. 6. As rightly pointed out that there is no document to indicate that petitioner is in possession of premises. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner has made out case for grant of writ of mandamus, which can be issued only on petitioner establishing legal right, corresponding legal duty, demand having been made and its actual or deemed refusal. However, same would not come in way of petitioner filing a fresh application with respondents by appending necessary documents. In case, such application is filed, respondents would require to consider same, in accordance with law. 7. In view of above, writ petition stands dismissed. However, with liberty to petitioner to file a fresh application with respondents, if so chosen. If application is filed along with necessary documents, including documents to show petitioner's - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35213 WP No. 27827 of 2024 possession over premises, respondents would require to consider same within a period of two weeks and to inform petitioner about result of consideration. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44