Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 50041 (KAR)

SMT PUSHPALATHA v. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD

WA/1464/2025 · 2026-01-05

C M Poonacha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:162-DB WA No. 1464 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1464 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SMT PUSHPALATHA W/O SRI K. KATHROY, D/O LATE KC JAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 3/1, VAIBHAV HOTEL BUILDING, BESIDE GOVT. SCHOOL, SARJAPURA ROAD, KAIKONDRAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560035. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. BHARMAL SHISIN SHABBISBHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MENTO ISAC, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD CORPORATE OFFICE AT KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:162-DB WA No. 1464 of 2025 BENGALURU METROPOLITAN AREA ZONE (BESCOM), NO. 14/3, 3RD FLOOR, MAHARISHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELECTRICITY) (O AND M), BESCOM HSR LAYOUT DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, 24TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS, 2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELECTRICITY) (COM.O AND M), BESCOM-S11 SUB-DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR, 24TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, 2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102 5. SRI. A. RAMAPPA S/O LATE SRI ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 6. SRI. A. LAKSHMAPPA, S/O LATE SRI ANJANAPPA. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 7. SMT. V. SHYLAJA, W/O A. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 8. SMT. L. ROOPA, W/O A LAKSHMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:162-DB WA No. 1464 of 2025 RESPONDENT No.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 24, SUNNY BROOKS, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, NEAR WIPRO CORPORATE OFFICE, DODDAKANNALLI, CARMELARAM, BENGALURU-560035 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.2565/2025 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT PRODUCED AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2565/2025. The petitioner had filed the said petition inter alia praying that direction be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to disconnect the electricity supply to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:162-DB WA No. 1464 of 2025 building named as 'Sri Balaji Vaibhav' which has been raised on a land described in Survey No.41 situated at Kaikondrahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru [subject property]. 2. It is the appellant's case that the said building is being constructed illegally on the land which belongs to the appellant. The learned Single Judge had noted that the appellant has already filed a civil action against respondent Nos.5 to 8 being O.S. No.4293/2025 with regard to the construction as well as occupation of the subject property. 3. In the given facts, the learned Single Judge has declined to excise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We concur with the decision of learned Single Judge. It would be inapposite to entertain the writ appeal which in effect has been filed to effectively prevent respondent Nos.5 to 8 from enjoying the premises which are the subject matter of civil suit between the appellant and the said parties. The appellant is not precluded from seeking appropriate interim relief in the said suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:162-DB WA No. 1464 of 2025 and cannot compel the State Authorities to disconnect the utilities in order to assert her rights. 4. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed. 5. We however, clarify this would not preclude the appellant from raising her contentions in any pending civil action or for availing appropriate remedies. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24