Disposed

Sri. Kiran Kumar v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023WP/23244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to B.E.S.C. for permanent power supply by quashing a notice based on a stay order in a civil suit. The Court clarified it could not resolve the title dispute between parties but observed that the petitioner’s application must be considered if the building is later confirmed complete.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no interference with impugned communication as dispute between parties is pending before civil Court.

Sri. Kiran Kumar Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40357 WP No. 23244 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23244 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KIRAN KUMAR S/O NARAYANASWAMY P L AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.245, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR AVALAHALLI, BDA PARK, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560085.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶16

1^ST WEST SUB DIVISION,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40357 WP No. 23244 of 2023

¶19

AVALAHALLI BANGALORE-560085.

¶20

SRI B M SIVAKUMAR S/O LATE B MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT56 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, TEJASWINI NILAYA, AYYANNA SHETTY LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560050.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN G ADAGATTI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2023; NOTICE TO R3 IS DEFERRED)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO PROVIDE THE PERMANENT POWER SUPPLY CONNECTION TO THE PETITIONER SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 26.04.2023 PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-A.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40357 WP No. 23244 of 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent’s communication dated 26.04.2023 [Annexure-A], and the second respondent by this communication has informed the petitioner that he is bound by the order of status quo dated 11.01.2023 granted in O.S. No.336/2023 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, ‘the civil Court’ ] and the application for permanent installation will be considered after such order is vacated and upon securing legal opinion from the concerned section.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the suit in O.S. No.336/2023 nor any interim order granted by the civil Court in such proceedings could be a hindrance because the third respondent, who is the plaintiff in such suit asserts rights to a site in Sy. Nos.28, 29 and 30 of Avalahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:40357 WP No. 23244 of 2023

¶32

Taluk, but the petitioner’s property is in Sy. Nos.17/1, 27/1 and 27/2 of the same village.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents submits that the concerned Engineer has visited the subject property and it is physically ascertained that the construction is not complete and both the petitioner and the third respondent have filed applications for permanent installations indicating the same property.

¶34

It is obvious from the circumstances that

¶35

the rival claims between the petitioner and the third respondent over a particular immovable property is pending consideration in a civil suit with both the parties being directed to maintain status quo. The first and second respondents cannot decide on the dispute of title or possession, and nor would it be reasonable to enter upon such dispute in any manner in the present petition when the same is pending consideration before the competent civil Court.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:40357 WP No. 23244 of 2023

¶38

Therefore, there cannot be any interference with the impugned communication, but this petition could be disposed of observing that even if there is an order/interim order in favour of the petitioner in the suit in O.S. No.336/2023 and if the authorities can confirm that the building is complete, the petitioner’s application filed at that point of time must be considered.

¶39

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

AN/-

Sri. Kiran Kumar v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kiran Kumar v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

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

M/S Rns Motors Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt Pushpalatha S Vs the Commissioner of Service Tax

Rangaswamy @ Ranganna Vs Lakshmamma

Wellness Forever Medicare Ltd., Vs Nirbaya Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre

United Breweries Limited Vs Snj Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Suresh v Vs the State of Karnataka