Allowed

I Workz Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Bengaluru Electricity Company

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2024WP/9688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electricity supply to premises was directed to be disconnected after a prior tenant company went into liquidation, despite the current petitioner-tenant occupying the premises. The court held the disconnection communications unsustainable and quashed them.

What did the court decide?

Impugned disconnection communications dated 02.03.2024 (Annexure-E) and 21.03.2024 (Annexure-F) quashed; power supply restored per interim order.

I Workz Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bengaluru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14733 WP No. 9688 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9688 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

I WORKZ AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,

¶7

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NARAYAN KOUSHIK, S/O H.G.BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.862, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶8

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

H.G.BHASKAR, S/O H.V.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.862, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶10

(BY SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

AND:

¶13

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY COMPANY, A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING CORPORATE OFFICE AT K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY COMPANY,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:14733 WP No. 9688 of 2024

¶16

K1 C O AND M SUB DIVISION, BESCOM, 1^ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, KENGERI, BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY COMPANY, O AND M-23, KUMBALAGODU, BENGALURU – 560 074.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 02.03.2024 SENT BY THE R-1 BEARING NO.CGM(OP)/DGM(OP-1)/AGM-4(OP-1)2024-25 AS PER ANNEXURE - E AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF THE R-2 DATED 21.03.2024 IN NO. NO.AEE(E)/K1SD/AAO/2022-23/6891 AS PER ANNEXURE – F AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners assert that petitioner No.1 is the tenant of the subject premises belonging to petitioner No.2 and earlier a tenant by name M/s. Augumentix Engineering Pvt., Ltd., was in occupation of the subject premises, and went into liquidation. Since then, the said company is not in occupation of the subject premises, however, petitioner No.1 is in occupation of the subject premises as on today.

¶24

The Official Liquidator communicated to the BESCOM to disconnect the power supply to the subject premises stating that the company which was the tenant has been liquidated. On the basis of the said communication, the impugned communication was issued by CGM to the SE to disconnect the power supply. The company which went into

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14733 WP No. 9688 of 2024

¶26

liquidation is not in occupation, and the subject premises is in occupation of the petitioner No.1 as tenant.

¶27

This Court vide order dated 28.03.2024 directed respondent No.3 to restore the power supply to the subject premises subject to the condition that the petitioner to paying consumption charges regularly. In light of the interim order granted by this Court, the power supply to the subject premises has been restored.

¶28

In view of the above, impugned communication issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure –E and impugned communication issued directing the respondent No.3 to disconnect the power supply are not sustainable in law.

¶29

5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

¶30

Impugned communication dated 02.03.2024 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure–E and communication dated 21.03.2024 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure –F are hereby quashed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

BVK

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

I Workz Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Bengaluru Electricity Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I Workz Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Bengaluru Electricity Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. v. Ramesh Reddy, Vs Mr. Noor Ahmad

M.B.Suresh Vs State by Kadur Police

Mr. Antony Praveen Dsouza Vs Sri Shrinivas

Gangappa Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Indumathi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Uttam Kumar K Vs State of Karnataka