Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 78627 (KAR)

NOUMAN TALHA ADIL v. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

WP/10109/2025 · 2025-08-14

Ravi V Hosmani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31505 WP No. 10109 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. 10109 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: NOUMAN TALHA ADIL, S/O ADIL PASHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.1010, DS MAX SKYCITY, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED NASEERUDDIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., KOTHANUR, NH4 SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560057. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., KOTHANUR, NH4 SUB DIVISION BANGALORE - 560057. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH4 SUB-DIVISION KOTHANUR BANGALORE - 560 057. 4. M/S TANZANITE REALTY INDIA PVT LTD COMPANY INCORPORATED BY COMPANIES ACT, #1, 4TH CROSS, THIMMAIH GARDEN, R.T NAGAR, BANAGLORE - 560 032 REP BY DIRECTOR MR. SYED AHMED HUSSAIN 5. MR. SYED AHMED HUSSAIN, OFFICE AT NEW NO.1, 4TH CROSS Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31505 WP No. 10109 of 2025 THIMMAIAH NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032 6. MRS. SHAIK PARVEEN W/O SHAIK SAMIYUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.BG01, 1ST MAIN, VYALIKAVAL LAYOUT, NAGAWARA, BANGALORE - 560045 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 266 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO RESTORE THE POWER SUPPLY IN RESPECT OF ELECTRICITY METERS BEARING METER NO.RR NO. MS9EH51550 AND ETC., THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents no.1 to 3 to restore power supply to petitioner's premises bearing meter RR No.MS9EH51550 by considering petitioner's representation at Annexure - A. 2. Sri Syed Naseeruddin, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was lessee of Flat No.1010, DS Max Skycity, Thanisandra main road, Bengaluru having paid lease - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31505 WP No. 10109 of 2025 amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to respondents no.4 and 5 with consent of respondent no.6. It is submitted that lease agreement was executed on 01.12.2023 for a period of two years commencing from 15.11.2023 to 15.11.2025. Though duration of lease is subsisting, at instance of respondents no.4 to 6, there is disruption of power supply to petitioner's premises. Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation to respondent no.3 for restoration of electricity supply to petitioner's premises bearing meter RR No.MS9EH51550. It was submitted, despite lapse of reasonable amount of time, same has remained without consideration, constraining petitioner to file this writ petition. 3. This Court, on 06.08.2025, had directed panel counsel to accept notice and secure instructions regarding supply or disruption of power to meter bearing RR No.MS9EH51550. Learned panel counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 submitted that there was no disruption of power supply to electricity meter bearing RR No.MS9EH51550 by respondents no.1 to 3. An affidavit to said effect is also filed by Assistant Executive Engineer, E9, OM Sub-Division, Bengaluru. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31505 WP No. 10109 of 2025 4. In view of above facts, though learned counsel for petitioner would suggest due to inter se dispute between petitioner and landlord, respondents had colluded with landlord, said submission would not retain this writ petition. 5. In view of specific assertion by respondents no.1 to 3 that there is no disruption of power supply to meter bearing RR No.MS9EH51550, petition would be rendered unnecessary. In case, petitioner suspects or is aggrieved of any action/inaction or collusion by any specific officer, petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate recourse provided in law. With said observation, writ petition is dismissed as unnecessary. Sri C. Channegowda, learned panel counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE BH:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14