- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33952 WP No. 26231 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 26231 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PULIGADDA SRINIVASA RAO S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-73-3, VIDYANAGAR 8TH LINE, VTC MULAGUNTAPEDU, PO: S KONDA, SUB DISTRICT SINGARAYAKONDA, DISTRICT PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 523 101 2. SRI Y S RAJASEKHAR YADAV S/O MR Y S RAMALINGAIAH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.4/1459 B, PAPAMPETA, ANANTAPUR, ANDRA PRADESH - 515 004 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009 Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33952 WP No. 26231 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) EAST-12TH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 048 3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J C ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. LIKITH R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 19.08.2025 IN NO.SA.KA.IM(VI)/SA.IM(TA)/ POO-12/25-26/1015-1019 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) EAST-12TH SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, MAHADEVAPUR, BENGALURU 560 048, i.e., 2ND RESPONDENT, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY RR NO.E12TPE- 3054 FORTHWITH TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33952 WP No. 26231 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging notice dated 19.08.2025 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-H and directing restoration of electricity supply to meter board no.RR-E12TPE-3054 forthwith, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Sri Karthik V., learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were in possession of site no.3 bearing BBMP Khata Sl.no.8 formed in Sy.no.52/2 measuring 30x50ft. situated at Nallurahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, having purchased same under registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024 at Annexure-A. It was submitted that after purchase, Khata certificate and Khata Extracts as per Annexures-B and C were issued. 3. It is submitted petitioners had paid taxes upto date as per Annexure-D. And as petitioners intended to put up construction on said site, they applied for and obtained sanction plan and building license from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33952 WP No. 26231 of 2025 respondent no.3-Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’). They also obtained temporary power connection from respondents no.1 and 2 through Meter bearing no.RR-E12TPE-3054 and were paying consumption charges regularly. 4. Such being case, respondents no.1 and 2 issued notice dated 19.08.2025 at Annexure-H to show-cause against dis-connection alleging construction was not in accordance with building plan, as informed by respondent no.3 in letter dated 14.08.2025. It was submitted, based on same, respondents no.1 and 2 had disconnected power supply. It was submitted prior to disconnection, petitioners were not provided with any opportunity or material, based on which respondent no.3 had alleged violation of building plan. It was submitted, since electricity supply was a basic necessity, respondents no.1 and 2 ought to have issued notice. Thus there was violation of principles of natural justice calling for interference and sought for allowing Writ Petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33952 WP No. 26231 of 2025 5. Sri H.V. Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Likith R., learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 opposed petition. 6. It was submitted, a communication was issued by respondent no.3 alleging construction by petitioners to be in violation of building plan. Further, Annexure-H was in fact, a show-cause notice providing time of seven (7) days to petitioners to submit reply. Since there was no reply, respondents proceeded to disconnect power supply. 7. Learned Counsel for respondents further submitted that prima facie building plan at Annexure-E shows approval for Stilt, ground + 2 floors. But, photograph of building produced at Annexure-J would indicate construction of two additional floors, which would be in violation of building plan. Therefore, action taken by respondents was in tune with directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para 21, in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33952 WP No. 26231 of 2025 Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767. On said grounds, learned counsel sought for dismissal of Writ Petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused material on record. 9. From above, petitioners’ grievance against disconnection of power supply by respondents is that it was without complying with principles of natural justice and based only on notice at Annexure-H. 10. Perusal of notice at Annexure-H would indicate that based on communication dated 14.08.2025 by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2, notice was issued. There is no reference to issuance of notice or passing of provisional order or confirmation order under Section 248(i) and (iii) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, against petitioner. 11. Notice would also not indicate inspection of petitioners’ building prior to taking action. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33952 WP No. 26231 of 2025 12. In view of above, action of respondents in disrupting power would be in violation of principles of natural justice. In any case, petitioners have since received copy of notice at Annexure-H. Therefore, it would be appropriate to permit petitioners to file their objection / reply to said notice and substantiate that construction put up by them was in accordance with law and comply with directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (supra), within a period of three weeks from today. On receipt of same, respondents no.1 and 2 to consider same and pass appropriate orders thereon after obtaining say of respondent no.3 on petitioners’ reply within a period of three weeks thereafter. 13. Until then, respondents no.1 and 2 to restore power supply to petitioners’ premises on payment of advance consumption charges as applicable. With above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33952 WP No. 26231 of 2025 In view of disposal of petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as unnecessary. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13