Disposed¶8

S. M. Divya Jyothi v. Bescom

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025WP/11660/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; prayer for mandamus restraining BESCOM K.R. Circle from commercial use of Site No.17 in residential layout of Bengaluru City Employees Housing & Social Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd (now Vidyagiri House Building Co-op Society Ltd), Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru; allotment tied to condition of grant of electricity connection requiring BESCOM office for bill payment and resident services; restriction of user to BESCOM office; apprehension held ill founded; petition disposed. Neutral citation: NC: 2025:KHC:9153.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued; petition disposed of in terms of the Court's observations recording that the site cannot be used by Respondent No.1 for any purpose other than as its office. ¶8

S. M. Divya Jyothi Vs Bescom — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No mandamus issued; petition disposed of in terms of the Court's observations recording that the site cannot be used by Respondent No.1 for any purpose other than as its office.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.1 (BESCOM) should be restrained by mandamus from putting Site No.17, situated in the residential layout formed by Respondent No.2, to commercial use. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Since the condition imposed was only for allotment of a site for setting up an office of Respondent No.1, the said property cannot be used by Respondent No.1 for any purpose other than as its office.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

There is no infirmity in the allotment made by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 for setting up an office of Respondent No.1, the allotment having been made in terms of the condition of grant of electricity connection to the layout.

¶6

Key takeaways

The petitioner's apprehension of commercial use of Site No.17 is ill founded, and the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above observations.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), W.P. No. 11660 of 2017 (GM-RES), decided 04-03-2025: Petitioner, owner of Site No.18 (allotted to her father and gifted to her) in a residential layout formed by Respondent No.2 society, sought a writ of mandamus restraining Respondent No.1 (BESCOM) from putting adjoining Site No.17, allotted to Respondent No.1, to commercial use. Held: the allotment was made in terms of the condition of grant of electricity connection to the layout, under which Respondent No.1 was required to establish an office enabling residents to pay electricity bills and avail services; there is no infirmity in the allotment. Since the condition was confined to setting up Respondent No.1's office, the site cannot be used for any purpose other than as the office of Respondent No.1. The petitioner's apprehension was held ill founded and the petition was disposed of in terms of these observations.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9153 WP No. 11660 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11660 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S. M. DIVYA JYOTHI D/O SRI. S.M. HAMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, THE BENGALURU CITY EMPLOYEES HOUSING & SOCIAL WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU 560 072.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. FAHAD M. ALI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M ABDUL RAHIMAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BESCOM K.R. CIRCLE BENGALUTU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE BENGALURU CITY EMPLOYEES HOUSING & SOCIAL WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.20, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS ROAD, NAGARABHAVI 1^ST STAGE BENGALURU 560 072 (NOW NAMED AS VIDYAGIRI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9153 WP No. 11660 of 2017

¶14

NO.291, G-005, GIRI BLOCK, VIDYAGIRI RESIDENCY 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 7^TH "A" CROSS VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 1^ST STAGE BENGALURU 560 072) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA. K.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH DIRECTION DIRECTING THE R-1 NOT TO PUT INTO USE THE SITE BEARING NO.17 SITUATED IN THE LAYOUT FORMED BY THE THEN BENGALURU CITY EMPLOYEES HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NOW NAMED AS VIDYAGIRI HOUSING BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED FOR ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶22

following reliefs:

¶23

i. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the R1 not to put into use the site bearing No. 17 situated in the layout formed by the then Bengaluru City Employees Housing and Social Welfare Cooperative Society limited now named as Vidyagiri

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:9153 WP No. 11660 of 2017

¶26

Housing Building Co-operative Society Limited for any commercial activities.

¶27

ii. For such other orders that may be deemed fit to be passed by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

The contention of the petitioner is that in a residential layout formed by respondent No.2, the petitioner's father had been allotted site No.18 and now the same has been gifted in favor of petitioner. Site No.17 which is abutting and adjoining the property of the petitioner has been allotted to respondent No.1.

¶29

The petitioner apprehends that the said site No.17 will be put to commercial use and used for commercial activities, thereby disturbing the peace and quiet of a residential area.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submit that site No.17 will only be used for putting up of the office of respondent No.1 and will not be used for any other commercial activities.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:9153 WP No. 11660 of 2017

¶33

The allotment of site to respondent No.1 is made in terms of the condition of grant of electricity connection to the layout, in terms of which the respondent No.1 is required to establish an office to enable the persond resident in the area to make payment electricity bills, etc. and for Respondent No.1 to establish a centre to enable providing of services to the residents.

¶34

In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the allotment made by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 for setting up for an office of the respondent No.1.

¶35

Since the condition imposed is only for allotment of a site for setting up of an office of respondent No.1, it is also clear that the said property cannot be made use of by respondent No.1 for any other purposes other than the said usage as an office of respondent

¶36

No.1.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:9153 WP No. 11660 of 2017

¶39

In that view of the matter, the apprehension on part of the petition is ill founded. The petition stand disposed of in terms of the above observation.

¶40

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

S. M. Divya Jyothi v. Bescom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. M. Divya Jyothi v. Bescom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udaya Kumar H G Vs State of Karnataka

Ak Maxx Properties Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. Regional Transport Officer

K L J a Kiran Babu Vs Ms Neelam Dhawan

Nataraju M Kasetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Madesh Vs the Director General of Police

Sri Sadananda Punja Vs the Commissioner for Hindu