- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31902 WP No. 1786 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 1786 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: M.MURTHY, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT UPPERHALLI, T.B. EXTENSION, NAGAMANGALA - 571 418. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SURENDRA KUMAR N., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, CESCO AND M CIRCLE, MANDYA - 571 432. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICTY SUPPLY CORPRATION LIMITED, NAGAMANAGALA - 571 418, MANDYA DISTRICT. 3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O NANJAPPA, NO.17, NANJAPPA BUILDING, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, MAHADESHWARAMMA CIRCLE, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 057. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAXMIKANTHA K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI B. RAKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31902 WP No. 1786 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 05.03.2021 AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 05.03.2021 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-G, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri N Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is holder of agreement of sale dated 30.03.1987 executed by one Sri Ramegowda in respect of writ petition schedule property ('property' for short). It was submitted, petitioner was put in possession of property on date of agreement. It was submitted, property had construction consisting ground floor and first floor with separate electric meters bearing RR no.N-4745 and N-4478. It was submitted, petitioner's vendor had let-out ground floor of premises to one Smt.DT Jayalakshmamma, wherein her son was carrying electric work. After agreement of sale, said Jayalakshmamma continued as tenant under petitioner, while, first floor of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31902 WP No. 1786 of 2022 premises was let-out to Mahadeva, an advocate. It was submitted, after Jayalakshmamma vacated ground floor, Mahadeva had shifted to ground floor. Thereafter, petitioner let-out first floor to some other tenant. 3. It was submitted, petitioner came to know about action of respondent no.2 transferring meters in name of respondent no.3. Immediately upon noticing same, petitioner had approached authorities and his name was restored. But on approaching Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, order at Annexure - G was passed. It was submitted, fact that petitioner had let-out premises would indicate that he was in possession and therefore, impugned order at Annexure-G would not stand in law. On said grounds, sought for allowing writ petition. 4. Sri Laxmikantha KB., learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 has filed a memo today, producing copies of letters dated 05.03.2022, 07.03.2022 and 16.04.2022 and submitted that after passing order at Annexure-G, respondents had removed earlier meters and installed new meters in name of respondent no.3. It was submitted, even as per petitioner, he was only agreement holder, while respondent no.3 was claiming right in respect of property under registered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31902 WP No. 1786 of 2022 sale deed. Therefore, petitioner was required to establish his rights insofar as property is concerned and thereafter, approach authorities. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 would submit that respondent no.3 had purchased petition schedule property from petitioner's vendor under registered sale deed dated 16.04.1997. After execution of sale deed, Khata and E-khata were issued in name of respondent no.3. It was submitted, after passing impugned order at Annexure-G, respondents no.1 and 2 had granted electricity connection through new meters bearing RR no.NCTB55 and NCTB56 respectively. It was submitted, since petitioner's claim in respect of property was disputed, writ petition would not be tenable. It was lastly submitted, impugned order at Annexure-G was earlier challenged by petitioner in W.P.no.5269/2021 and on 26.07.2021, same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy in law. Instead of availing same, petitioner has once again filed present writ petition which would not be tenable. On said grounds, sought for dismissal. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31902 WP No. 1786 of 2022 7. Though petitioner had sought to challenge order at Annexure-G passed by respondent no.1, perusal of said order would reveal that respondent-authority had earlier issued power supply through meter bearing RR no.N-4478 in name of Smt. DT Jayalakshmamma while property stood in name of Smt.Bhagyamma. In said premises, petitioner was tenant. On 21.09.2019, on request of Smt.Jayalakshmamma meter was transferred to her name. Same was objected by petitioner. On consideration, Assistant Executive Engineer, Nagamangala Sub- divisional, Mandya, had directed restoration of names as earlier. It noted that, power sanction to meters, in name of petitioner, who was only tenant, was without obtaining 'no objection' from competent authority. On noticing same and also fact that owner of property had executed sale deed in favour of respondent no.3, impugned order was passed for cancellation of power connection through meter bearing RR no.N-4478 and N-4745 and to issue fresh power supply in name of respondent no.3. 8. Even as per petitioner, he is agreement holder in possession, while respondent no.3 claims to be owner in pursuance of registered sale deed executed by petitioner's - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31902 WP No. 1786 of 2022 vendor. This would indicate petitioner is seriously disputing title over property. Such being case, action of respondents issuing power connection in name of respondent no.3, whose claim is under registered sale deed cannot be stated to be without any basis or contrary to law. It is for petitioner to establish his rights against original owner or respondent no.3, before appropriate forum and thereafter, to approach respondents no.1 and 2 for power connection. 9. Besides above, it is seen that petitioner had earlier approached this Court against impugned order at Annexure - G in W.P.no.5269/2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy in law. 10. Instead of approaching civil Court for declaration of rights, petitioner has once again approached this Court. For above reasons, writ petition would not be tenable and it is dismissed with liberty as granted in W.P.no.5269/2021. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34