Allowed

Sri Siddesh Kumar R v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2024WP/1502/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged BESCOM notices requiring an occupancy certificate as a condition for permanent power supply to his building. Since the occupancy certificate requirement was withdrawn, the court held the notices lacked authority, allowed the writ petition and quashed them.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices dated 3.1.2022 and 14.01.2022 issued by respondent No.3 (Annexures-A & B) quashed; interim order restraining disconnection stands vindicated.

Sri Siddesh Kumar R Vs Bangalore Electricity… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:15602 WP No. 1502 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1502 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SIDDESH KUMAR R S/O V. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 22, GOPI SCHOOL ROAD MEENAKSHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA NEW EXTENSION, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU 560 079.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA C S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED A WHOLY OWNER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING CORPORATE OFFICE K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALUR 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) C,O AND M RAJAJINAGAR DIVISON BESCOM, RAJAJINAGAR WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) N-3, SUB DIVISION, BESCOM BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU 560 079.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. SAKANIEM(V)N-3/2161-62 DATED 14/01/2022 ISSUED

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:15602 WP No. 1502 of 2022

¶19

BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICES IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO R.R. NO. N-3HT115 SERVICED TO THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING BEARING NO. 58(20), SITUATED AT 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the owner of the subject property consisting of ground + 7 floors and occupancy certificate was issued by the BBMP for ground + 1, 2 and Terrace.

¶23

Furnishing of occupancy certificate was the pre-requisite condition for the purpose of sanctioning of power supply to the subject property.

¶24

One Parameshwar, lodged a complaint with the respondents stating that the petitioner by creating occupancy certificate has availed permanent power supply to the subject property. Based on the compliant filed by Parameshwar, the respondents called upon the petitioner to furnish the occupancy certificate.

¶25

Pre-requisite condition of furnishing the occupancy certificate for the purpose of availing permanent power supply has been withdrawn with effect from 1.7.2022. This Court vide order dated

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:15602 WP No. 1502 of 2022

¶28

25.01.2022 granted interim order, restraining the respondents from disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner's installation.

¶29

The condition precedent for furnishing the occupancy certificate for availing permanent power supply having been withdrawn, the impugned notices issued by the respondent-BESCOM lacks authority.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶31

The impugned notices dated 3.1.2022 and 14.01.2022

¶32

issued by respondent No.3 at Annexures-A & B are hereby quashed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sri Siddesh Kumar R v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddesh Kumar R 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 S.A. Rawther Spices (P) Ltd., Vs the Director

Jagannath Rao K R Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee

K Sundara Bangera Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Sri Venkatesh B S Vs the State of Karnataka

Anandaraju N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Neelavathi. M Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited