Sri G Shivashankar Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30767 WP No. 16527 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 16527 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI G.SHIVASHANKAR, S/O LATE G. HONNAGANGAPPA, AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1440, II CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶7

SMT. HANUMAKKA, W/O GANGAHANUMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/A NO. 57, 5^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, LAXMINARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

[BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANNABASAPPA S.N., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶10

AND:

¶11

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI COMPANY LTD (BESCOM), PARLATTAYA S CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, Location: High BANGALORE - 560 001, Court of REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. Karnataka

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), 8^TH NORTH SUB DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, SRIGANDADHADAKAVALU,

¶13

BENAGALURU - 560 091.

¶14

SRI SIDDA RUDHA, S/O JOGI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO.5, 10^TH MAIN ROAD,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:30767 WP No. 16527 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

7^TH CROSS, GNANABHARATHI POST,

¶19

GNANA JYOTHI NAGARA, MALLATTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 056. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DTD.11.01.2024)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

[BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH); SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PH)]

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2019 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed for following reliefs:

¶27

i) Issue a Writ or order in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate order of direction quashing the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by 2^nd respondent bearing no. J£ï 8 / ¸ÀPÁ¤EA(«)/£À EA(PÁA)/ 2019-20/2372-75 vide Annexure-A etc.

¶28

Sri Rajeswara PN, learned counsel appearing for Channabasappa SN, advocate for petitioners submitted, petitioner no.1 was owner in possession of site no.1866 formed in Sy.no.3/2 vide conversion order bearing no.ALN/(N)/SR/ 92/92/03-04 dated 25.10.2003 situated at Gidadhakonenahalli village, Yeshvanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, having purchased it under registered sale deed dated 20.12.2003. Likewise, petitioner no.2 was owner of site no.1865 having

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:30767 WP No. 16527 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

purchased it under registered sale deed dated 14.12.2006. It was submitted, both sites were adjacent to each other and petitioners had got their names mutated in revenue records.

¶33

Thereafter, when respondents tried to encroach on their properties, petitioners filed OS nos.4505/2018, 6168/2018 and 5563/2018 before trial Court. It was submitted, trial Court had granted ad interim order of temporary injunction, which was in force till date.

¶34

It was submitted, respondent no.3 was claiming right in respect of petitioner's site under sale deed dated 20.03.2018 allegedly executed by Sri Munithimmaiah and others. It was submitted, said sale deed was followed by rectification deed dated 28.06.2018 cleverly to omit reference of Sy.no.1865 as demised property. Based on said document respondent no.3 obtained building licence from respondentauthorities and intended to commence construction on petitioners' land and had approached respondents no.1 and 2 for electricity supply. It was submitted, though, interim injunction granted in civil suits were in operation, under impugned order passed by respondent no.2, temporary

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:30767 WP No. 16527 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

electricity connection was approved in favour of respondent no.3. It was submitted, same was in fact contrary even to legal

¶39

opinion at Annexure-K.

¶40

Under above circumstances, as electricity

¶41

connection was provided illegally, same was questioned. It was submitted, during pendency of writ petition, respondent no.1 had initiated disciplinary proceedings against officer, who passed order at Annexure-A. Same concluded holding said officer guilty of commission of misconduct and an order of penalty for withholding 15% of his pension was passed by Disciplinary Authority. Said order vindicated petitioners contention against order at Annexure-A and therefore sought for allowing writ petition.

¶42

Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, admits initiation of disciplinary proceedings against officer, who had passed order impugned herein at Annexure-A as well as fact that said officer had suffered order of punishment. He also does not dispute fact that impugned order was passed ignoring legal opinion and submits appropriate orders may be passed.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:30767 WP No. 16527 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Sri HC Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent no.3 would submit issue about petitioners' claim over sites no.1865 & 1866 in pursuance of sale deeds at 20.12.2003 and 14.12.2003 and that of respondent no.3 in respect of site no.24/3A in terms of Rectification/Sale deed dated 28.06.2018 were pertaining to same land, was presently pending adjudication before Civil Court and was a seriously disputed question of fact.

¶47

Referring to paras no.9 and 10 of his statement of objections, it was submitted that in OS no.4491/2015 filed by Bettegowda, Society had declared that it had no right, title or ownership in Sy.no.24/3A to extent of property belonging to Smt.Chennamma - original owner and purchased by respondent no.3 herein. It was further submitted that Society had filed statement of objection in WP no.43943/2019 filed by respondent no.3 against BBMP and others, specifically stating in paras no.4 and 5 that property claimed by respondent no.3 and petitioner herein, were entirely different in area, ward, survey number and village. It was also contended that society was deliberately not impleaded as party to this writ petition.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:30767 WP No. 16527 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

It was further submitted, even Commissioner of BBMP had filed affidavit in WP no.49010/2018 (Annexure-R16) stating that claim of petitioners and respondent no.3 with regard to title and identification of properties were seriously disputed questions of facts which had resulted in issuing provisional order and its confirmation. In view of above, it was submitted, subject matter of writ petition involves serious disputed question of facts and therefore petition was not tenable. On said grounds sought for dismissal.

¶52

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶53

From above, it is seen sole ground of challenge against impugned order at Annexure-A approving temporary electricity connection to premises of respondent no.3 is that it was passed illegally ignoring orders of temporary injunction granted in Civil Suits and property being embroiled in serious title dispute apart from same being contrary to legal opinion.

¶54

Perusal of order dated 06.02.2025 produced along with Memo dated 07.08.2025 would reveal that officer, who had passed impugned order at Annexure-A had faced

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:30767 WP No. 16527 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

disciplinary proceedings on account of misconduct committed while passing order at Annexure-A and its conclusion, holding him guilty of misconduct for providing temporary power connection illegally to respondent no.3 herein.

¶59

Said order without any more would fully vindicate petitioners' challenge against impugned order at Annexure-A with respondent no.1 herein having taken a stand about illegality of order passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-A) and concluded about its illegality, regardless of dispute of title and possession.

¶60

In view of above, nothing more would be required to be adjudication by this Court insofar as order at Annexure-A. Contentions urged by respondent no.3 herein would at best require appreciation by trial Court in pending suits and impugned order at Annexure-A requires to be set-aside subject to adjudication of identity/title/possession over premises in question.

¶61