- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33436 WP No. 8057 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 8057 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SRI.T. MOHAMED NOWMAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI AMEEN, R.AT NO 19/3, DAVIS ROAD, COOKE TOWN, BENGALURU 560005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, K R CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) E5, SUB DIVISION BESCOM, LAZAR ROAD, COOKS TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33436 WP No. 8057 of 2025 MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU EAST SUB DIVISION, MARUTHISEVA NAGAR WARD, BENGALURU 560033. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ADAGATTI PRAVEEN GANGADHAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; SRI B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN RESPECT OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION METERS BEARING ID NO. (i) 70066746 (ii) 70066725 (iii) 70066760 (iv) 70066742 (v) 70066695 (vi) 70066726 (vii) 70066732 (viii) 70066739 (viii) 70066739 (ix) 70066744 (x) 70066750 (xi) 70066722 (xii) 9091498 PROVIDED TO PROPERTY NO.19/3 AND ASSIGNED PID NO.86-29-19/3 SITUATED AT DAVIS ROAD, COOKE TOWN, BENGALURU 560005, THE WRIT PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33436 WP No. 8057 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Writ petition is filed seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to restore electricity supply in respect of electricity consumption meters bearing ID no. i) 70066746 ii) 70066725 iii) 70066760 iv) 70066742 v) 70066695 vi) 70066726 vii) 70066732 viii) 70066739 ix) 70066744 x) 70066750 xi) 70066722 and xii) 9091498 installed to property no.19/3, PID no.86-29-193 situated at Davis Road, Cooke Town, Bengaluru. 2. Sri Shankar Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was owner of property bearing no.19/3, Davis Road, Cooke Town, Bengaluru, under registered sale deed dated 26.07.2023 at Annexure-A. Subsequently, his name was mutated in revenue records of BBMP, E-khata was issued and he was paying taxes. It was submitted, petitioner intended to demolish earlier structure and put up fresh construction on site. Therefore, he applied for and obtained sanction building plan and licence from BBMP as per Annexures - F and F1 respectively. Thereafter, he completed construction as per sanctioned plan and availed water/sanitary connection to premises and occupied it along with his family members. In - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33436 WP No. 8057 of 2025 some portion, petitioner had inducted tenants. However, petitioner was issued with notice dated 10.01.2025 under Section 248(1) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, ('BBMP' for short) along with another notice under Section 248(2) of said Act. Thereafter respondent no.3 passed order under Section 248(3) and 356(1) of BBMP Act as per Annexures - J, J1 and J2 respectively. It was submitted, said orders were challenged by petitioner before Chief Commissioner, BBMP, in Appeal no.61/2025, wherein on 15.03.2025, interim order directing to maintain status quo was passed. Though, petitioner had informed said interim order to respondents no.1 and 2, there was disruption of power supply at instance of respondent no.3, on basis of order/notices at Annexures- J, J1 and J2 respectively were issued. Since, same were challenged in Appeal and interim order was granted, disconnection of power supply was not justified. On said ground, sought for allowing writ petition. 3. Sri Adagatti Praveen Gangadhar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri B.S. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondent no.3 opposed petition. It was submitted, since provisional order alleging construction to be in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33436 WP No. 8057 of 2025 violation of building plan, was passed followed by order of confirmation, action of respondents would be in tune with directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3767. And unless petitioner satisfied that his construction was strictly in accordance with law, power supply could not be restored. On said ground sought dismissal of petition. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused record. 5. From above, electric connection provided to premises as per particulars provided is not in dispute. Apparently, disruption of power supply to petitioner's premises is at instance of respondent no.3, who appears to have hitherto issued provisional order Section 248(1) of BBMP Act followed by confirmation order dated 12.02.2025 at Annexures - J and J2 respectively. It is not in dispute that said order is challenged by petitioner in appeal as per Annexure-K, wherein, there is interim order of status quo. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33436 WP No. 8057 of 2025 6. In view of above, since allegation of respondent no.3 against construction put up by petitioner being in violation of building plan or bylaws has not attained finality, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition by directing respondents no.1 and 2 to continue power supply to petitioner's premises subject to outcome of appeal and directing respondent no.3 to conclude Appeal in expeditious manner. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.3 to conclude Appeal no.61/2025 in accordance with law expeditiously and directing respondents no.1 and 2 to restore power supply to petitioner's premises subject to final outcome thereof by paying consumption charges to respondents no.1 and 2 . Needless to state that respondent no.3 to inform result of appeal to respondents no.1 and 2, who would thereafter be at liberty to take further action in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44