- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31616 WP No. 24096 of 2025 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. 24096 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SMT KANNAMMA, D/O LATE K CHINNASWAMY, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 249, VIDYANAGARA CROSS, BETTAHALASUR, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU - 562 157. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHAV BALAJI KASHYAP.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) O AND M DIVISION VIDYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, BENGALURU 562 157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LIKITH R.P., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.SA.KA.NI.IM./SA.IM.(TA.)/ VIDYANAGAR/25- 26/1319 24.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM, VIDYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE -A). Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31616 WP No. 24096 of 2025 THIS PETITION, 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 relief: "Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned notice bearing No. SA.KA.NI.IM./ SA.IM.(TA.)/VIDYANAGAR/25-26/1319 dated 24.07.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent/Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Vidyanagar Sub-Division, Bengaluru as against the petitioner herein (produced vide Annexure-'A') etc. " 2. Sri Madhav Balaji Kashyap, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, land bearing Sy.no.32/2 (new Sy.no.32/2A) measuring 04 Acres 08 guntas, situated at Kadaganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengalurur North Taluk belonged to petitioner's father late K Chinnaswamy. It was submitted after his death petitioner and her family members succeeded to it and that daughter, petitioner was entitled to 1/5th share in it. It was submitted, O.S.no.2244/2006 filed for partition by one of her sister was presently pending before Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli. In meanwhile, to extent of 21 guntas, petitioner was in possession, residing therein and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31616 WP No. 24096 of 2025 running Weighbridge. For said activity petitioner had sought to construct office in a "Container base'. It was submitted thereafter electricity connection was obtained and petitioner was running business in name and style 'M/s Sree Balaji Enterprises' along with her children. 3. Such being case, it was learnt that at instance of petitioner's sister-in-law, Smt.Nagamma wife of late C Govindaraju, who had made representation on 18.11.2022 to respondent no.2 against electricity connection obtained by petitioner, she was issued with notice on 24.11.2022 at Annexure-M and called upon to produce documents in her possession with regard to title etc. It was submitted, petitioner had replied to said notice. But, respondent no.2 issued one more notice on 24.07.2025 at Annexure-A, calling upon petitioner to furnish documents relating not only to ownership, but also alleging that electricity supply obtained to 'Container', same was likely to cause electrocution risk to public/animals. It was submitted, said notice was apparently to harass petitioner, hence sought for quashing of same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31616 WP No. 24096 of 2025 4. On other hand, Sri Likith R Prakash, learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted, on instructions that petitioner was earlier issued with notice dated 24.11.2022 at Annexure-M, to which petitioner had not filed any reply. It was submitted, even to Annexure-A there was no reply and in case reply is submitted, respondents would consider same and pass appropriate orders. Under such circumstances, writ petition was not tenable and sought dismissal. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 6. From above, petitioner's grievance against notice issued by respondent is that electricity connection obtained by petitioner was sought to be cancelled at instance of persons inimical towards her. But, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents, petitioner has not submitted reply to either of notices at Annexure-A or Annexure-M. Perusal of their contents would indicate that they call upon petitioner to show- cause against disconnection on account of safety concerns and to demonstrate her title over property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31616 WP No. 24096 of 2025 7. In view of above, writ petition need not be retained. It would be appropriate to dispose of it by directing petitioner to submit reply to notices and direct respondents to consider reply and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Hence, writ petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to submit reply to notices at Annexures-A and M within a period of three weeks from today along with records before respondent no.2. On submitting reply by petitioner, respondent no.2 to consider same in light of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3767, in para no.21 and pass appropriate orders after providing opportunity to petitioner, but within a further period of four weeks. Until then respondents are directed not to take any precipitative action against petitioner. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE psg*:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57