- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16155 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MR VENKATESH C R S/O MR.RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.MALLIKARJUNA ENGINEERING, HAVING SHED NO. 10, 4TH CROSS RAMESHWARANAGAR, SAIBABANAGAR, NEAR ANUPAMACOLLEGE, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B KESHAVA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION ZONE 01, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 060. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION, OFFICE OF MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER KENGERI DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE-01, BANGALORE-560 0 60. 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION KENGERI DIVISION, BANGALORE-560060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 05.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 HEALTH OFFICER KENGERI DIVISION RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA ZONE, BBMP BANGALORE IN NO. BBMP/AVAI. KEM. V/PR/193/2025-26 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW THIS WP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a proprietor of a Micro Mill, is aggrieved by the notice issued by the second respondent which is produced as Annexure-A. The second respondent has issued this notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause against a direction to relocate the mill from a residential locality lest there be measures for disruption of electricity supply. Sri B.Keshava Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent has fallen in error in assuming that the petitioner's mill is within a residential area when it is indisputable that the area is a mixed location where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted. Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances. The impugned action is only a notice and it allows the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026 petitioner seven days’ time but the notice is in the month of December 2025 and no action is taken so far even according to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the petitioner's grievance would be addressed if the petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed response to the impugned notices calling upon the second respondent to consider the same before deciding on any coercive measure and to desist from taking precipitous action until then. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed-in-part reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks from today without even waiting for a certified copy of this order with the second respondent, directing the second respondent to consider the same and pass - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026 just orders and to desist from taking precipitous action until then. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr