Disposed

M Srinivas v. the Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2022WP/3428/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by BESCOM threatening to disconnect power due to construction below high tension lines. The Court held the petition premature but directed BESCOM to reconsider objections before enforcing disconnection.

What did the court decide?

Directed BESCOM to consider objections before disconnection and not to take coercive steps until such consideration is complete.

M Srinivas Vs the Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.3428 OF 2022 (LB – BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 . M. SRINIVAS

¶9

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O. MR. MUNIVENKATAPPA # 8/3, CHIRAG NILAYAM, 4TH CROSS ANAM ENCLAVE, ASHWATH NAGAR THANNISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶10

2 . MR. BABU THOMAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O. MR. V. A. THOMAS # 31, 2ND MAIN, ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR, THANISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶11

3 . LAKSHMIKANTH G. L. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O. MR. LAKSHMIPATHI G. N. # 173, 9TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR THANISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶12

4 . MRS. SADIA TARANNUM W/O. MR. SYED SAMIR SADIQ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS # 160, 2ND MAIN ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR

THANISANDRA

BANGALORE - 560 077

5 . MR. S. PADMANABAN S/O. MR. K. SAKTHIVELU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS # 166/1 10TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR THANISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶17

6 . MR. V. MUTHU BALAN S/O. MR. S. VARADHARAJAPERUMAL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS # 166/2, 10TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR THANISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶18

7 . MR. B. A. ELIYAZ NAZMEEN KOUSER S/O. MR. BNA AZAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.190, 7TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR THANISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶19

8 . MR. YUVARAJ JANGID S/O. MR. PUKHRAJ JANGID AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS # 38, 2ND MAIN ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR THANISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶20

9 . MRS. MANISH CHACKO S/O. MR. T. U. CHACKO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶21

¶22

32, 2ND MAIN ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR THANISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶23

10 . MR. AMEEN ALI SHAIKH S/O. MR. ABDULLA A. SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS #183, 8TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ANAM ENCLAVE ASHWATHNAGAR THANISANDRA BANGALORE - 560 077

¶24

...PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND :

¶27

1 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, SHIVAJI NAGAR SUB-DIVISION NO.8 APARANJI OFF SCALE NANDIDURGA ROAD GROUND FLOOR BENSON TOWN BENGALURU - 560 046

¶28

2 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER E-9 SUB-DIVISION BESCOM, NAGAVARA SUB-DIVISION HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 045

¶29

3 . BANGALORE BRUHATH MAHANAGAR PALIKE (BBMP) HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶30

4 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION

¶31

¶32

BANGALORE BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) BENGALURU - 560 024

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SMT. SUMAN NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 08.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE R2 AS PER THE ANNEXURES-A AND B AND ETC.

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Respondent No.4-BBMP has communicated with

¶39

the respondent Nos.1 and 2-BESCOM so as to disconnect the power supply to the buildings

¶40

constructed below the high tension line.

¶41

In pursuance to the said communication, the respondent No.2-BESCOM has issued show cause notices calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why electricity supply should not be disconnected. The petitioners have submitted their objections to the

¶42

¶43

show cause notices issued by respondent No.2BESCOM.

¶44

The petitioners' grievance is that the respondent No.2-BESCOM without considering the objections submitted by the petitioners are threatening to disconnect the power supply to the petitioners' building. Hence, this writ petition.

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by

¶46

learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

In pursuance to the communication issued by the respondent No.4-BBMP, respondent No.2BESCOM has issued show cause notices calling upon the petitioners as to why electricity supply should not

¶48

be disconnected for having put up construction below the high tension line. The petitioners have suitably replied to the said show cause notices.

¶49

Petitioners' grievance is that without

¶50

considering the objections, respondent No.2-BESCOM

¶51

¶52

has threatened to disconnect the power supply to the petitioners' building. The challenge in this writ petition is to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2-BESCOM and at this stage, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is premature. However, the right of the petitioners can be safeguarded by directing respondent Nos.1 and 2-BESCOM not to take coercive steps without considering the objections submitted by the petitioners.

¶53

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, directing respondent Nos.1 and 2- BESCOM to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners dated 04.02.2022 at Annexure-H and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶54

Respondent Nos.1 and 2-BESCOM to pass

¶55

appropriate order without being influenced by the communication issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 4-

¶56

¶57

BBMP recommending to disconnect the power supply to the building constructed below the high tension line. Till consideration of the objections submitted by the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 and 2-BESCOM shall not take coercive steps to disconnect the power supply.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

RKA

M Srinivas v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Srinivas v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B v Shivashankar Vs Tahsildar

S. Parathasarathi Vs Assistant Revenue Officer

Dakshina Kannada Zilla Beedibadi Vyaparasthra Shreyobhivrudhi Sangha (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shruthi Y Vs the Commissioner

G Aswathamma Vs State of Karnataka

L Govindraj Vs the Chief Commissioner