- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28185 WP No. 22186 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22186 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. AKULA PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MALLESU AKULA PERMANENTLY R/AT NNO.1-433-2-1, MARUTHI NAGAR, KADAPA POST AND DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 516001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKASH V T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002. 2. ASSISTANTE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HOODI SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE 560048. 3. M/S BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHESHADRI ROAD, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560001. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28185 WP No. 22186 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST-12 SUB DIVISION, B.E.S.C.O.M MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU 560048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SMT. ANUSHA PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 30/12/2023 UNDER SECTION 248 (1) OF B.B.M.P ACT, 2020 BEARING NO.B.B.M.P/A.E.E/H.S.D/P.O/377/2023-24 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the notice/communication dated 14.07.2025 issued by respondent No.4, as per Annexure-D, whereby the petitioner is threatened with disconnection of power supply within seven days. The said action is premised on the Confirmation Order allegedly passed under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, by the respondent authorities. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28185 WP No. 22186 of 2025 2. This Court, in a comparable matter—Smt. Gnannaselvi v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P.No.21556/2015, disposed of on 22.07.2025 has strongly deprecated the conduct of officials of BESCOM, BWSSB, and BBMP in seeking to disconnect essential utilities such as electricity and water supply on the ground that the property owner has suffered a Confirmation Order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. It was observed that such actions amount to overreach and an abuse of power by the respective authorities. 3. The record discloses that the petitioner has already challenged both the Provisional and Confirmation Orders by invoking the statutory appellate remedy under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. The appeal, as evidenced by Annexure-H, is presently pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority, i.e., respondent No.1. Issuance of the impugned notice during the pendency of the appeal indicates a disregard for procedural propriety and unnecessarily escalates avoidable litigation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28185 WP No. 22186 of 2025 4. Once the petitioner has availed the appellate remedy and the matter is sub judice, it was incumbent upon respondent No.4 to defer further action and await the decision of the Appellate Authority. In the absence of finality to the Confirmation Order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, initiation of coercive measures such as disconnection of power or water supply amounts to premature and arbitrary exercise of power. Consequently, the impugned notice at Annexure-D is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 5. In view of the above, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned notice/communication dated 14.07.2025 issued by respondent No.4, as per Annexure-D, is hereby directed to be kept in abeyance, pending disposal of the petitioner’s appeal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28185 WP No. 22186 of 2025 filed under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, which is presently pending consideration before the Appellate Authority/respondent No.1. (iii) It is further clarified that respondent No.4 shall not initiate or pursue any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the said notice during the pendency of the appeal, and until a decision is rendered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE DL