- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 12099 OF 2020 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V, ADVOCATE) T.L. RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE LAKKANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O LATE T.L. RAMAMURTHY AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. T.R. MANJUNATH S/O LATE T.L. RAMAMURTHY AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. T.R. HARISH S/O LATE T.L. RAMAMURTHY AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. T.R. KUSUMA D/O LATE T.L. RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIPPENAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST, YASHVANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 073. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ( ELECTRICAL) NELAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION, NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MADANAYAKANAHALLI BRANCH MADANAYAKANAHALLI, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 162. 3. T.M. JAGADISHA LATE T.V. MAREGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3(A). SMT. NALINA W/O LATE T.M. JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3(B). DUSHYANTH W/O LATE T.M. JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. NALINA W/O LATE T.M. JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 3(C). SMT. GANDHAMMA @ PAPAMMA W/O LATE MAEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF TIPPENAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 073. 4. GRAMA PANCHAYATH LAKSHMIPURA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 073, REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAYA H, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (A AND B); VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2025, NOTICE TO R3(C) HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI. G.C. SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATET FOR R1; SMT. GIRIJA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R4 - SERVED) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G BY HOLDING THAT OFFICERS OF BESCOM HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THE CIVIL DISPUTE AND TO AWAIT THE DECISION OF THE CIVIL COURT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 17.10.2020 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-G, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that properties bearing Sy.no.10, 11 and 12 of K.G.Srikantapura, Dasanpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Begaluru, Rural District, fell to share of petitioner’s father in panchayat palu parikath dated 01.10.1966. On 09.04.2019, he had applied and obtained license and No Objection Certificate from respondent no.4 – Gram Panchayat for running a Hollow Bricks manufacturing Unit in above lands. For said purpose, he had availed power supply from respondents no.1 and 2. But on 16.07.2020, respondents no.1 and 2 issued notice to petitioner to show-cause against dis-connection on ground that petitioner had obtained electricity supply based on fake documents. Said notice questioned in W.P. no.8976/2020, this Court disposed if of on 31.08.2020 by ordering for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 treating it as a show-cause notice, permitting petitioner to file objections and avail opportunity before passing of orders afresh. It was submitted, in terms of opportunity granted by this Court, petitioner filed his explanation on 11.09.2020 as per Annexure-E emphatically denying creation of documents and No Objection Certificate and license issued by Gram Panchayat were fake. He also submitted a representation to Gram Panchayat as per Annexure-F to certify that documents / certificates issued to petitioner were genuine. Despite same, without holding proper enquiry or providing opportunity or assigning any reasons, respondent no.1 passed impugned order for disconnecting power supply to petitioner’s factory. Assailing same, Writ Petition was filed. 3. It was firstly submitted that petitioner was running Bricks Factory in agricultural land i.e., Sy.nos.10, 11 and 12 which would not fall within jurisdiction of respondent no.4. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 4. It was nextly submitted that documents obtained from Gram Panchayat were genuine and were submitted to respondents no.1 and 2 for obtaining power supply. It was submitted that in terms of directions issued by this Court, liberty was reserved to petitioner and he had submitted a reply specifically denying allegations that documents relied upon by petitioner at the time of power sanction were fake. 5. It was submitted that at time of passing order at Annexure-G, respondent no.1 did not hold enquiry and did not assign any reason and order was passed without considering petitioner’s reply at Annexure-E. 6. On other hand, Smt.Girija Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 submitted that in terms of liberty reserved by this Court in earlier round of Writ Petition, petitioner had availed opportunity and filed reply as per Annexure-E. Thereafter respondent no.1 held enquiry as indicated in Annexure-R5. Despite opportunity being granted to petitioner to establish that documents - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 alleged be obtained from respondent no.4 were genuine, petitioner failed to establish their gravity. On other hand, as respondent no.4 had informed that No Objection Certificate and license produced by petitioner were fake and created, respondent no.1 proceeded to pass impugned order. 7. It was submitted that said order would be in tune with Clause no.43 of Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in The State of Karnataka (for short, ‘Conditions’) regarding ‘Furnishing of Fake / Fraudulent documents by consumer’. It was further submitted that at time of issuance of notice, dated 16.07.2020, petitioner was informed that action initiated by respondents no.1 and 2 was based on intimation by respondent no.4 about petitioner having obtained power sanction based on fake documents and impugned order at Annexure-G, precisely on this reason. Thus, petitioners’ contention that impugned order does not disclose reason for passing order or without holding enquiry or without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 providing opportunity to petitioner would not be tenable and sought for dismissal. 8. Learned counsel for legal representatives of respondent no.3 also sought for dismissal. 9. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused material on record. 10. From above, petitioners’ challenge against Annexure-G, is mainly on ground that it does not disclose any reasons, is passed without considering petitioners’ reply at Annexure-E and without holding enquiry and based only upon respondent no.4 stating that No Objection Certificate and license were fake. 11. As rightly submitted, Clause no.43 of Conditions would empower respondents no.1 and 2 to disconnect power supply, in case same was obtained on fake documents. 12. In instant case, from notice dated 16.07.2020 issued to petitioner was calling upon to show-cause - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 against disruption of power on ground that petitioner had obtained same based on fake documents. Thereafter as directed by this Court, petitioner had filed objections / reply to notice and respondent no.1 had held enquiry proceedings as disclosed in Annexure-R5. 13. Based on Anexure-R3 petitioner was called upon to demonstrate documents relied upon by him were genuine. During enquiry, petitioner did not produce fresh No Objection Certificate nor establish No Objection / license produced by him were genuine. 14. In absence, respondent no.1 relied upon communication by Gram Panchayat at Annexure-R3 to conclude that petitioner had obtained power sanction based on fake license and No Objection. Though petitioner contends that land in Sy. no.10 to 12 would not fall within jurisdiction of respondent no.4, said contention would require to be rejected on sole ground that petitioner himself had approached respondent no.4 for issuance of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 license and No Objection and produced same before respondents no.1 and 2. 15. In so far as contention that no reasons are assigned and objections at Annexure-E are not considered, a perusal of impugned order would reveal reason that sufficient opportunity was granted and petitioner had not submitted genuine No Objection Certificate (NOC) and license. 16. Thus, none of contentions urged by petitioners would hold good. Especially so as petitioner has not questioned communication issued by respondent – Gram Panchayat as per Annexure-R3 either before this Court or before any Forum. Contention that initiation of action by respondents no.1 and 2 is at instance of petitioners’ cousin, namely, respondent no.3, who had filed a suit for partition and its pendency and therefore, respondents could not have initiated proceedings and its conclusion would not be available as impugned action is only on basis of Annexure-R3. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33841 WP No. 12099 of 2020 17. In view of above, no grounds to interfere, Writ Petition stands dismissed. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that liberty may be reserved to petitioners to file fresh application to respondents no.1 and 2 in compliance with law. 19. On consideration, same would be permissible. Therefore, it is observed if petitioners file application afresh along with necessary documents, respondents no.1 and 2 would require to consider same in accordance with law and by keeping in mind directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 21, in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK