Disposed

Smt Sudha v. the Managing Director (Consumer)

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024WP/5984/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking restoration/sanction of electricity supply rejected due to a temporary injunction in O.S.No.139/2021 restraining the petitioner. Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to approach BESCOM if the injunction is vacated or suit dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to petitioner to approach BESCOM for power supply once temporary injunction is vacated or O.S.No.139/2021 is dismissed.

Smt Sudha Vs the Managing Director (Consumer) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:8617 WP No. 5984 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5984 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SUDHA, W/O. RAJU KACHARE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.39, THUNGA BLOCK, SAISHAKTHI LAYOUT, BETTADASANAPURA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (CONSUMER), BESCOM OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶11

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

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E), S-10^TH SUB DIVISION, BESCOM, B.G. ROAD, BEGURU, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶13

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DODDATHOGUR GRAM PANCHAYATH, DODDATHOGUR, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY POWER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:8617 WP No. 5984 of 2024

¶19

DISCONNECTED ON THE PREMISES BEARING NO.39, THUNGA BLOCK, SAISHAKTHI LAYOUT, BETTADASANAPURA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner's request to sanction power supply was rejected on the ground that in O.S.No.139/2021 filed by one Manikandan, an order of Temporary Injunction is operating against the petitioner restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

¶23

Learned Counsel for BESCOM., would submit that during the subsistence of an order of temporary injunction, the BESCOM is not under an obligation to sanction power supply, which would otherwise result in defeating the Temporary Injunction granted against the petitioner herein. The matter is seized before the Civil Court in O.S.No.139/2021, and when an application is filed for vacating the order of Temporary Injunction, the claim of the petitioner for sanctioning power supply cannot be granted.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents - BESCOM., in the event the order of Temporary Injunction is vacated or the suit is dismissed.

¶25

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Smt Sudha v. the Managing Director (Consumer)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sudha v. the Managing Director (Consumer)

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

A P Gopikrishna Vs the Additional Commissioner of Transport and Secretary

K R Suresh Kumar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Sri. B. G. Ajay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish Shetty H S Vs the Aisiri Co. Operative Society Limited

Sri. Arun Ballakur Vs Sri.M.Krishna Reddy

Sri G B Mahesh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka