- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29686 WP No. 17582 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17582 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. I.B. SUDHA, W/O I.D. BIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 370/1, 5TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, NEAR WATER TANK, HOOTGALLI, MYSURU-570 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, HOOTGALLI, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29686 WP No. 17582 of 2026 MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570001 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, CORPORATION LTD, OFFICE OF THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O AND M SUB DIV, HOOTAGAHALLI, MYSURU 570001 4. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU 570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R4; SRI. G. M. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 05.6.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2. PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE IMPUGNED CONFIRMATION ORDER, DATED 03.7.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 10.7.2025 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.4.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU IN CASE BEARING NO. MUN. RP 22/2025, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- D. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29686 WP No. 17582 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is the owner of immovable property bearing No. 513 of Hootgalli Village, Kasba Hobli, Mysuru [the subject property], has called in question the Provisional Order dated 05.06.2025 [Annexure – A], the Confirmation Order dated 03.07.2025 [Annexure – B], the Consequential Notice dated 10.07.2025 issued by the third respondent [Annexure – C], and the order dated 08.04.2026 [Annexure – D]. The first two impugned orders are under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 [for short, 'the KMC Act']. The Order dated 08.04.2026 is under Section 322 of this Act, and the Communication dated 10.07.2025 is to inform the petitioner that the power connection to the subject - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29686 WP No. 17582 of 2026 property is withdrawn in view of the orders under Section 187 of the KMC Act. 2. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had called in question the Provisional and Confirmation Orders in W.P.No.21002/2025 contending that these proceedings have culminated after notice to a third party, who is stranger to the property, but not to the petitioner. This Court, on 15.07.2025, has granted interim order, but this Court has disposed of the petition on 02.09.2025 directing the respondents not to precipitate the matter with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 322 of the KMC Act. The petitioner has thereafter filed the revision in No.22/2025 which has culminated in the impugned order dated 08.04.2026. 3. Mr. Sangamesh R. B, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents cannot dispute that the proceedings, which has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29686 WP No. 17582 of 2026 culminated with the Confirmation Order, is begun with a notice issued in the name of a stranger, and the learned counsel emphasizes that the Confirmation Order is also in the name of such person. The learned counsel argues that the Revisional Authority [the fourth respondent] has failed to consider the same even though the petitioner has taken a specific stand in this regard. 4. As against these assertions, Mr. G. M. Anand, the learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that this Court may consider that this was a ground that was specifically urged before this Court in the earlier writ petition and that the petitioner cannot raise the same ground. The learned counsel also contends that if the petitioner has called in question the Confirmation Order, she must show why the proceedings cannot be justified instead of relying upon the fact that the notice is addressed to a stranger. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29686 WP No. 17582 of 2026 5. Mr. Bopanna Belliappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the first and fourth respondents, is heard. This Court must observe that the respondents cannot dispute that the proceedings are initiated in the name of a stranger to the subject property and not in the petitioner's name. Further, though the stranger has placed on record that he has no interest in the subject property, the petitioner is not issued with any notice extending an opportunity to show cause against the Confirmation Order. In this, lies a procedural infirmity. 6. The Revisional Authority has not considered this part despite these being brought on record with a specific averment and also being part of the orders of this Court. This Court must, in view of these facts and the salient that a notice which is defective cannot be sustained, must interfere observing that this interference cannot foreclose any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29686 WP No. 17582 of 2026 further proceedings by the Authority in the event there is a reason for the same. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the impugned Provisional Order dated 05.06.2025, the Confirmation Order dated 03.07.2025 as also the Order in revision dated 08.04.2026 and the Communication by the third respondent dated 10.07.2025 without prejudice to the Authorities to begin fresh proceedings in the petitioner's name but with due opportunity. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB