- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2619 WP No. 38535 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 38535 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SMT. SURYA J.RAO, D/O LATE K.APPAJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANTHAMANGALA VILLAGE, AJJAWARA HOBLI, SULYA TALUK, MANGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KPTCL REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU. (DELETED) 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, KAVOOR, MANGALURU. 4. THE EX.ENGINEER (ELE) O & M DIVISION, MESCOM, BENNURA-PUTTUR-574243. DAKSHINA KANNDA DISTRICT. (DELETED) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2619 WP No. 38535 of 2025 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026, R2 AND R4 DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Chandranath Ariga.K., counsel for the petitioner and H.V. Devaraju, counsel for respondents 1 and 3, appeared in person. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. a) Direct the respondents to deviate from the drawing up of 110 KV. Electricity Transmission from the lands owned by the petitioner’s bearing sy. No. 285/1A1, 272/1A5, 272/1A3, situated at Ajjawara village, Sulya Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. b) Pass any other appropriate orders or directions. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2619 WP No. 38535 of 2025 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the subject lands. He contends that respondents 1 and 3 are proposing to install two poles on his lands. Apprehending that respondents 1 and 3 will forcibly enter his lands for the installation of poles, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The relief sought in the writ petition is injunctive in nature, and the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised. However, the petition is treated as an obstruction application, and respondents 1 and 3 are directed to approach the appropriate forum for the removal of the obstruction in accordance with the law. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16