- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36083 WP No. 26026 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 26026 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: MR. MURALI GOVINDARAJULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O R. GOVINDARAJULU, R/A 360, 3RD CROSS, BROOKEBOND LAYOUT, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJKUMAR MD., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, WHITEFIELD SUBDIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 066. 2. THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, E 12, MAHADEVAPURA, BESCOM, BANGALORE - 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI HV DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36083 WP No. 26026 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE DATED 13.08.2025 BEARING NO.S.KA.EO(V)/SEM(TA)/PU- 12/25-26/984-98 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2-AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE - A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging notice dated 13.08.2025 issued by respondent no.2 as per Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri MD Rajkumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, under registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.2019, petitioner purchased site no.4, Khata no.7 within BBMP Ward no.84 situated at Nallurhalli, KR Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. It was submitted, in said property, petitioner intended to construct residential building. Accordingly, he obtained statutory approval from respondent no.2 as per Annexures-B and C. For purpose of construction, he had obtained temporary power supply from respondent no.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36083 WP No. 26026 of 2025 Thereafter, he completed construction and applied for permanent electricity connection. Respondents had issued work order on 24.03.2025 as per Annexure-E. In meanwhile, respondent no.1-BBMP had issued provisional order on 30.05.2025 under Section 248(1) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (' BBMP Act' for short) and issued show-cause notice under Section 248(2) of BBMP Act. Said notice was challenged by petitioner in W.P.no.16575/2025. Same was disposed of on 16.06.2025 as per order at Annexure-G, permitting petitioner to file objections and directing respondent no.1 to consider petitioner's objections before passing order under Section 248(3) of Act. After filing of objections, respondent no.1 proceeded to pass confirmation order dated 24.06.2025. Said order was challenged by petitioner in W.P.no.18609/2025 disposed of on 27.06.2025 as per order at Annexure-G quashing order dated 24.06.2025 and directing respondent-BBMP to consider petitioner's reply and to pass order afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Even before fresh orders could be passed, petitioner was issued with impugned notice by respondent no.2 calling upon petitioner to obtain NOC from BBMP for continuation of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36083 WP No. 26026 of 2025 power connection. It was submitted, said notice was issued on 13.08.2025, by granting only 7 days time to reply, which was not sufficient. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. 3. Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 on instructions, submitted that upon remand of proceedings by this Court, once again confirmation order under Section 248(3) of Act was passed. Therefore, intimation was issued to BESCOM for stoppage of power supply and same would be in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that notice was issued calling upon petitioner to show cause against disruption of power supply on intimation received from respondent no.1-BBMP about unauthorized construction put up by petitioner. It was submitted, notice impugned was show- cause notice and without filing reply/objections, petitioner had approached this Court. Hence, same was liable to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36083 WP No. 26026 of 2025 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 7. From above, it is seen, petitioner's grievance against notice at Annexure-A, is that it did not provide sufficient time for filing objections. Instead of delving into same, it is found appropriate to permit petitioner to file objections/reply to notice at Annexure-A within time limit and directing respondents to consider same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 8. In view of above, writ petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to file reply/objections to notice at Annexure-A within period of two weeks from today, by appending necessary records which would substantiate that building put up by petitioner is in accordance with law. On receipt of same, respondent no.2 shall obtain say of respondent no.1 thereon within two weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders within outer limit of four weeks thereafter. Till then, temporary power supply to petitioner's premises shall continue subject to petitioner paying advance consumption charges, as applicable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36083 WP No. 26026 of 2025 Needless to observe that Authorities require to keep in mind directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767 (para 21) at time of consideration and to inform result of consideration to petitioner. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13