- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32983 WP No. 19497 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19497 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MR. RAMESH S N S/O MR.NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.NANJUNDESHWARA INDUSTRIES, HAVING SHED NO.10, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, RAMESHWARA NAGAR, 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. 2. THE MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION, OFFICE OF MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER KENGERI DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE-01, BANGALORE-5600 60. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32983 WP No. 19497 of 2026 3. THE MEDICAL 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 RESPONDENT NO.2, HEALTH OFFICER, KENGERI DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA ZONE, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE, IN WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND ALLOW THIS PETITION. 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, a proprietor of a Micro Engineering Industry, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32983 WP No. 19497 of 2026 against a direction to relocate the industry 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 industry 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32983 WP No. 19497 of 2026 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 just orders and to desist from taking precipitous action until then. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-