- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32157 WP No. 24331 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 24331 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: MR. BALAIAH NAIDU V., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE VENU NAIDU.V, R/AT NO.118, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 037. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO 236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALURU - 560 002. 3. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (BESCOM), EAST SUB-DIVISION NO.4, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32157 WP No. 24331 of 2025 WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 (PH); SRI K.S. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 (PH); SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R3 (PH)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.07.2025 BEARING NO.SA.KA.IM.(VI)/SAIM(TA)/PO4/2025- 26/2304 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging notice dated 21.07.2025 passed by respondent no.4 at Annexure-G, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is owner of property bearing BBMP Khata no.717/243/48/70 situated at Whitefield Main Road, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, totally measuring to 2576 sq.fts. ('property' for short). Said property was acquired by petitioner under registered sale deed dated 23.02.2024 at Annexure-A. Since there was an error in description of property in deed, a rectification deed was executed on 01.03.2024 at Annexure-B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32157 WP No. 24331 of 2025 And from date of sale, petitioner was in possession and got Khata also transferred in his name as per Annexure-C. Petitioner intended to build commercial building in property and sought approval from BBMP. On securing same, he began construction and completed structural work, when respondent no.4 disconnected power supply to petitioner's premises. On enquiry, petitioner came to know about notice dated 21.07.2025 at Annexure-G issued in name of third person in respect of petitioner's premises. It was submitted, perusal of said notice indicated that on apprehension of respondent no.2- BBMP about construction by petitioner being in violation of building plan and by-laws, notice was issued and intimation sent to BESCOM. It was submitted, petitioner had not received any provisional order or confirmation passed by respondent no.2. In view of same and as notice was delaying construction, petitioner filed O.S.no.25772/2025 against BBMP for injunction. It was submitted, as disruption of power supply was without notice to petitioner, impugned notice at Annexure-G was liable to be quashed and sought for allowing writ petition. 3. On other hand, learned AGA for respondent no.1, Sri K.S.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32157 WP No. 24331 of 2025 no.2-BBMP and Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent no.3-BESCOM opposed writ petition. It was submitted, on receipt of intimation about construction being in violation of building plan and by-laws, notice was issued. It was submitted, electricity consumption bill at Annexure-E produced by petitioner showed 'S.Karthik' as consumer and after purchase, petitioner had not got meter transferred in his name. In view of above, notice was issued in name of consumer. It was further submitted, notice issued would also be in tune with direction contained in para 21 of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Anr. v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767. On above grounds, sought dismissal of writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 5. From above, petitioner's main grievance against Annexure-G is that it was in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner also claims that he had not received any intimation about passing of provisional order or its confirmation by respondent no.2 on ground that construction put up by him was in violation of building plan and by-laws. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32157 WP No. 24331 of 2025 6. In view of above, instead of retaining writ petition, it would be appropriate to direct Annexure-G to be treated as show-cause notice issued to petitioner and permit him to file reply to same before respondent no.4 within period of two weeks and direct respondent no.4 to take note of reply and pass appropriate order thereon, keeping in mind directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case (supra). It would also be appropriate to direct respondent no.2-BBMP to furnish information to petitioner/respondent no.4 about any action taken or initiated against petitioner for violation of building plan etc., prior to passing of orders by respondent no.4. Until then, respondents to continue power supply to petitioner's premises subject to payment of advance consumption charges as may be necessary. With above directions/observations, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17