Allowed

Mohammed Sajjad Ali v. Managing Director

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/19943/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a property owner against BESCOM and BBMP, quashing an official notice for power disconnection. It granted a permanent injunction against disconnection amidst allegations of illegal construction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order for disconnection was quashed. BESCOM was directed to continue power supply and pay regular consumption charges. The Court held that violation of building permissions is not a groun

Mohammed Sajjad Ali Vs Managing Director — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35440 WP No. 19943 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 19943 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED SAJJAD ALI, S/O LATE MAHMOOD ALI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.12/1, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, AMBEDKAR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), C5 SUB DIVISION, KAVALBYRASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶14

COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:35440 WP No. 19943 of 2024

¶17

N.R.SQUARE,

¶18

BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, K.G.HALLI SUB DIVISION, ROBERTSONPET, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.K.S.MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL LETTER ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 11.07.2024 BEARING ITS NO.C5/SAKAIM/SAIM(THA)/202425/591 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL LETTER ISSUED BY THE R-4 DATED 29.06.2024 BEARING ITS NO. SA.KA.AA/K.G.HALLI/P.R/27/2024-25 FOR DISCONNECTION OF TEMPORARY POWER SUPPLY TO THE PETITIONERS PREMISES METER BEARING NO. C5TP12172 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A AND B AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

“a. Quash the Impugned Official Letter issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 11.07.2024 bearing its No.C5/SaKalm/ Salm(Tha)/2024-25/591 And Quash

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35440 WP No. 19943 of 2024

¶28

the Impugned Official Letter issued by the 4^th Respondent dated 29.06.2024 bearing its No.Sa.Ka.Aa/ K.G.Halli/ P.R/27/2024-25 for disconnection of temporary power supply to the petitioner’s premises meter bearing No.C5TP12172 produced as ANNEXURE- A and B .

¶29

b. Direct the 2^nd Respondent Authority/ Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM to restore the temporary power connection bearing its No.C5TP12172 as per temporary power supply provided dated 24.06.2024. vide Annexure-S.

¶30

c. Issue any other writ, order or direction and such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

The action on the part of respondent No.2 has made the petitioner to approach this Curt in this writ petition.

¶32

The petitioner purchased the petition property vide registered sale deed dated 16.08.2021, pursuant to the sale deed executed in his favour he has effected change in katha and revenue entries. The petitioner after

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35440 WP No. 19943 of 2024

¶34

obtaining sanction and building license started putting up construction in the petition property, one BJP Murali when interfered with the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the Civil Court in O.S. No.799/2024 for permanent injunction and for consequential relief against the said person. The trial Court granted temporary injunction on I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, restraining the said BJP Murali (defendant) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property (petition property). Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction, BJP Murali (defendant) had approached this Court in MFA.No.4926/2024, it is brought to the notice of this Court that MFA has been dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2024 by this Court.

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner being the absolute owner of the petition property and after having obtained the building license was putting up construction. Respondent No.4 (“BBMP”)

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35440 WP No. 19943 of 2024

¶37

has addressed a letter to respondent No.2 (“BESCOM”) to disconnect the temporary electricity connection provided to the petition premises and BESCOM at the behest of respondent No.4 has issued notice for disconnection of power supply to the petition premises.

¶38

Perusal of Annexures 'B' and 'Q' indicates that BBMP had addressed a letter to BESCOM stating that the construction put up by the petitioner is illegal as he has put up construction on the Government land, and on the basis of the letter issued by the BBMP, BESCOM has proceeded to issue impugned notice at Annexure 'A' dated 11.07.2024, it is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that the BESCOM had disconnected the electricity connection to the petitioner's installation in the month of July, 2024, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the BESCOM has restored the electricity connection. If the contention of the BBMP is that the petitioner has put up any illegal construction, the course available to BBMP is to take appropriate action in accordance with law, but on the

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35440 WP No. 19943 of 2024

¶40

behest of BBMP, the BESCOM cannot disconnect the electricity connection. The action on the part of the BESCOM in depriving the electricity connection is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is settled proposition of law that providing electricity is one of the fundamental right for existence and protected under

¶41

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to the petitioner complying with the other requirements and the electricity being a basic amenities of which a person cannot be declined, moreover on a complaint given by a third party.

¶42

The supply of electricity being an inherent right

¶43

of a citizen, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the basic amenity and necessary direction needs to be issued to the BESCOM and this Court pass the following -

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶46

ii) The impugned order at Annexure 'A' is quashed.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:35440 WP No. 19943 of 2024

¶49

iii) The BESCOM to continue the power supply to the petition premises and the petitioner to pay regular consumption charges.

¶50

iv) Violation of any building permission/sanction cannot be a ground for BESCOM to disconnect the electricity supply, it is for the BBMP to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶51

v) In the event the petitioner makes any application for permanent supply, the BESCOM to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶53

YKL

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Mohammed Sajjad Ali v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sajjad Ali v. Managing Director

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

Smt Sharadhamma Vs the Managing Director

The Management of M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs Sri Narendra

Karnataka Housing Board Vs Ramanna v

Parle Workers Union Vs Government of Karnataka

West Coast Paper Mills Company Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka

Dakshina Kannada Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Vs Sri J Keshava