Allowed

Sri T Pavan Kumar, v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024WP/2944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this writ petition quashing BESCOM's refusal to grant permanent electricity connection. The court held that since the trial court clarified the status quo order restricted only alienation, not enjoyment, the petitioner was entitled to connection pending the partition suit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication refusing electricity connection was quashed, the authority directed to reconsider the application within four weeks, and the petitioner directed to abide by the status quo o

Sri T Pavan Kumar, Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11486 WP No. 2944 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2944 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. T. PAVAN KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.48, SOMYA NILAYA, JAYANTHAMMA STREET, NAGAMMA EXTENSION, KAVALBYRASANDRA, BENGALURU-560032.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR. S. SHASTRI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RUPESH KUMAR. S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), C-5 SUB DIVISION, KAVALBYRASANDRA, BENGALURU-560032, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E).

¶13

SRI. N. RAMESH, S/O SRI. NALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O KAVALBYRASANDRA, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11486 WP No. 2944 of 2024

¶16

(BY SRI. PUSHPAKANTHA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. R. MURALIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2.)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 01.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A DIRECT THE R1 TO SANCTION AND SUPPLY PERMANENT ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO THE LAND IN QUESTION AND ETC,.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner asserts to be the owner of the properties bearing house list Nos.29, 54 and 59, carved out in survery No.40/1 situated at Nagavara village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No.1 for sanctioning permanent power connection to the subject properties. The respondent No.1 issued the impugned communication stating that the application submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered, since an order of status quo is operating against petitioner passed by the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in OS.No.8100/2019. Hence, this petition.

¶21

Sri. Vigneshwar S. Shastri Senior counsel representing the petitioner counsel submits that the Trial Court has clarified that the order of status quo shall not be construed as restricting the petitioner from enjoying the suit schedule properties, and the therefore, the impugned communication issued by respondent No.1 is not sustainable in law.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argues that the petitioner having violated the interim order of statue quo (by the Trial Court) is not entitled for sanctioning of permanent power connection to the subject property. He further apprehends that the petitioner taking

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11486 WP No. 2944 of 2024

¶24

advantage of the permanent power connection, if sanctioned, is likely to create third party rights.

¶25

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

A suit is filed in OS.No.8100/2019 by the respondent No.2 against petitioner for partition and separate possession of his legitimate share. In the said suit an order of status quo is operating between the parties, and the Trial court has clarified that the order of status quo shall not be construed as restricting in any manner enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by its owner except its alternation, modification and alienation, creating third party interest what so ever manner. In the absence of an order of restraint, the petitioner cannot be deprived of permanent power connection when the trial court has clarified that the order of status quo shall not be construed as restricting the owner to enjoy the suit schedule property.

¶27

According, the petition is allowed.

¶28

i) The impugned communication dated 01.09.2023 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶29

ii) The respondent No.1 to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for sanctioning permanent power connection to the subject property in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

iii) It is made clear that the permanent power connection to be sanctioned is subject to the final out come of the pending suit. It is needless to state that the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:11486 WP No. 2944 of 2024

¶33

petitioner shall abide by the interim order of status quo operating in OS.No.8100/2019 and this order shall not be construed as giving any right to the petitioner in creating any third party right as of today.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

PNV

Sri T Pavan Kumar, v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Pavan Kumar, v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

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

Syed Mufeez Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar M Vs Radha M

The Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri G Chidanandaswamy

Sharada Auto Union (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivasamurthy. P. C. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S G K Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs Superintendent Engineer