Disposed

Sri J Praveen Kumar Singh v. the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024WP/25520/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Flat owners sought mandamus directing BESCOM to provide permanent electricity supply to four flats; BESCOM had withheld connection due to a pending civil suit involving the developer. The Court held mere pendency of a civil dispute cannot disentitle possessors of premises from electricity and directed supply.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing BESCOM (R1-R3) to provide electricity supply to Flats 001, 002, 201, 202 forthwith on compliance with formalities; prayer for police protection dismissed as not pressed with

Sri J Praveen Kumar Singh Vs the Bangalore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 25520 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.J. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI JAYAPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. FF-1, SUMAN ENCLAVE, NO.1, 1^ST MAIN,1^ST CROSS, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶8

SRI.B.K.RAVI, S/O SRI.B.KESHAVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 34, ARUNODHAYA, 6^TH CROSS, OPP:T.R.NAGAR OLD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 028.

¶9

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

¶10

SRI.N.GIRISH, S/O SRI.N.NARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 63, 2^ND MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶11

SRI.A.SOMASHEKAR, S/O SRI.ANNAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RA/T NO. 175, 14^TH 'A' MAIN, 8^TH 'B' CROSS, R.P.C. LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶12

SRI.RAVIKUMAR.B., S/O SRI. BASAVANNA.R,

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶14

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RA/T NO. 31, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, NEAR KADAPA SWAMY MUTTA, BHUVANESHWARINAGARA, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶15

SRI.RAJAT HEGDE, S/O SRI.SURESH HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RA/T NO.3, 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, BDA LAYOUT, JANANBHARATHI, 1^ST BLOCK, MARIYAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, K.R.CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, KENGERI SUB - DIVISION, MAILSANDRA, BENGLAURU - 560 060.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, KENGERI SUB - DIVISION, MAILSANDRA, BENGLAURU - 560 060.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE WEST DIVISON,

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶24

MAGADI RAOD, POLICE QUARTERS, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KENGERI GAT E SUB - DIVISION, NEAR GALI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, BYATARAYANAPRUA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶26

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, R.R. NAGAR POLICE STATION, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR IDEAL TOWNSHIP MAIN ROAD, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU RD, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R4 TO R6 SMT. GIRIJA PATIL FOR R1 TO R3)

¶29

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-1 TO 3 TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY TO THE FLATS BEARING NO. 001, 002, 201 AND 202 CONSTRUCTED IN V.S. GARDEN APARTMENTS SITUATED AT SITE NO. 2 FORMED OUT OF CONVERTED SY.NO.21 OF PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Petitioners are seeking for the following prayers:

¶35

”a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to provide Electricity Supply to the Flats bearing No.001, 002, 201 and 202 constructed in 'V.S. Garden Apartments', situated at Site No.2 formed out of converted Sy.No.21 of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

¶36

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the 6^th Respondent to give Police Protection to the Petitioners for the peaceful enjoyment of their respective Flats, in order to give effect to the order of the Civil Court dated 14.06.2024, in O.S.No.190/2023 pending on the file of the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City(CCH-11).

¶37

c) Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

¶38

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press prayer No.(b), with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court seeking necessary prayer.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶40

3. Submission is recorded. Accordingly, prayer

¶41

No.(b) is dismissed granting liberty to approach the appropriate Court in accordance with law.

¶42

Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 assert that they jointly purchased Site No.2 formed in converted Survey No.21 at Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, under registered Sale Deed dated 27.08.2014, pursuant to the purchase, the names of the petitioners were entered in the Katha. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 having intended to develop the said site, applied for construction of building plan to the BBMP, building plan was sanctioned and for the purpose of construction, the petitioners applied for temporary electricity connection, which was sanctioned by the authority.

¶43

It is asserted by petitioner Nos.1 to 4, that they entered into a Joint Development Agreement with one Sowmya, under registered Joint Development Agreement dated 15.09.2016, for the purpose of

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶45

constructing building. Pursuant to the joint agreement, the developer - Sowmya entered into a memorandum of understanding with one D.S. Mohan, Proprietor of M/s.Sapthagiri Constructions, and pursuant thereto, construction of the building has been completed consisting of ten flats in total and as per Joint Development Agreement, out of the ten flats, six flats bearing Nos.101, 102, 301, 302, 401 and 402 fell to the share of developerSowmya and remaining four flats bearing Nos.001, 002, 201 and 202 fell to the share of the owners i.e., petitioners Nos.1 to 4.

¶46

Petitioners submit that the dispute arose between the developer-Sowmya and the aforementioned D.S.Mohan, Proprietor of Sapthagiri Constructions, resulting in filing of a suit by Sapthagiri Constructions in O.S.No.190/2023 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the Suit Schedule Properties. The Suit Schedule ‘A’ Property, is entire site No.2 that was purchased by petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein and Schedule ‘B’

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶48

properties were the flats which had fallen to the share of the developer-Sowmya, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were arrayed as defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the said suit and Sowmyadeveloper was arrayed as defendant No.1.

¶49

The concerned Court, vide order dated 31.01.2023, granted an ex parte order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants therein from alienating the Suit Schedule Properties. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4, after entering appearance in said suit, filed application seeking for vacating of the interim order on the count that the lis is between defendant No.1 (Sowmya) and the plaintiff (Sapthagiri Constructions), and so far as petitioners were concerned, they cannot be subjected to any hardship, the concerned Court vide order dated 14.06.2024 modified the interim order.

¶50

It is the contention of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 that, thereafter they have sold three flats that had fallen to their share bearing No.001 in favour of petitioner No.5, Flat No.201 jointly in favour of petitioner No.6 and his wife

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶52

and No.202 jointly in favour of G.Venkataramana. This being the state of affairs, on purchase, the purchasers are residing in the said flats. Petitioner No.1 had applied for temporary electricity connection, the RR Number has been raised on his behalf and hence, he gave an application dated 28.06.2024 on behalf of the purchasers to the authorities to provide electricity supply and also brought to the notice of respondent No.3 that the interim order has been modified.

¶53

The grievance of the petitioners is that, in spite of the request of the petitioners to supply permanent electricity to the petition premises and the BESCOM Authorities are not providing the essential necessity to the petitioners, such as electricity.

¶54

It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the schedule premises, and that the dispute is between the developer and M/s.Sapthagiri Constructions, the BESCOM authorities, at the behest of the proprietor of M/s.Sapthagiri Constructions, cannot

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39954 WP No. 25520 of 2024

¶56

deny the electricity supply to the schedule premises and withhold the essential necessity to the petitioners. Mere pendency of a civil dispute would not be a ground to disentitle the petitioners from obtaining the electricity connection in their names, particularly, when the petitioners are in possession and when there is no direction to the BESCOM authorities not to provide electricity connection. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, non-providing of electricity connection, at the behest of third party on the ground that the civil suit is pending, is unsustainable, in the said circumstances, this Court directs respondent Nos.1 to 3 - BESCOM Authorities to provide electricity supply forthwith to the flats Nos.001, 002, 201 and 202 on the petitioners complying with the requisite formalities for grant of electricity connection.

¶57

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶58

BKN

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri J Praveen Kumar Singh v. the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri J Praveen Kumar Singh v. the 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

Smt. Razika Begum Vs Sri. Rehamathulla Khan

The Employes Sparr Group of Companies Vs M/s. Sparr Equipment Limited

Yashwanth Kumar @Yashwanth Deekshith Vs the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Sri Gopalareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mudda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Smt Radha Vs Deepak