Disposed¶46

Smt Lakshmi v. the Deputy General Manager

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/17603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BESCOM electricity connection transfer dispute; petitioner Smt. Lakshmi versus respondent No.5 Smt. Revathi over premises at Sandyavoo Nagar, Kaval Byrasandra, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru; connection RR No. G5LG29548 standing in respondent No.5's name pursuant to a 2011 registered sale deed; O.S. No. 316/2012 (declaration of title and injunction) pending before Civil Court; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 disposed of with parties left to work out rights in the suit; continuance of connection made subject to suit outcome. Justice K.S. Hemalekha; decided 09.10.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:39887.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petition disposed of with the observation that continuance of the electricity connection shall be subject to the final outcome of O.S. No. 316/2012. ¶46

Smt Lakshmi Vs the Deputy General Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; petition disposed of with the observation that continuance of the electricity connection shall be subject to the final outcome of O.S. No. 316/2012.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the electricity connection in respect of RR No. G5LG29548 and cancellation of the connection issued to respondent No.5, while title to the schedule property remains unadjudicated in the pending O.S. No. 316/2012 before the Civil Court. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

Since O.S. No. 316/2012 is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, the parties were left to work out their rights in the said suit; the ownership dispute being essentially a civil dispute, the legality of the transfer of the electricity connection ultimately depends on the finding of the Civil Court.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Continuance of the electricity connection, whether in favour of the petitioner or of respondent No.5, shall be subject to the final outcome of O.S. No. 316/2012 pending before the Civil Court.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge oral order of the High Court of Karnataka (Justice K.S. Hemalekha, 09.10.2025) disposing of W.P. No. 17603/2022 (GM-KEB), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Petitioner Smt. Lakshmi sought a direction to BESCOM officials (respondents 1 to 4) to restore electricity connection RR No. G5LG29548 for premises No. 231/1(8/4), New No. 129, Sandyavoo Nagar, Kaval Byrasandra, Bengaluru, by cancelling the connection issued to respondent No.5 Smt. Revathi, the transfer having occurred during the pendency of O.S. No. 316/2012, in which the petitioner seeks declaration of title and consequential injunction against respondent No.5 and her husband. Holding the ownership dispute to be essentially a civil dispute whose outcome determines the legality of the connection transfer, the Court left the parties to work out their rights in the pending suit and observed that continuance of the connection, whether in the petitioner's or respondent No.5's name, shall be subject to the final outcome of O.S. No. 316/2012. No substantive relief granted.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:39887 WP No. 17603 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.17603 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT OLD NO.231/1(8/4), NEW NO.129, 2^ND CROSS, SANDYAVOO NAGAR, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560032.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI NAVEEN REDDY M.V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., NO.309, 3^RD FLOOR, BESCOM CORPORATE BUILDING, 2^ND BLOCK, K.R.CIRCLE, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., 3^RD FLOOR, CRESCENT ROAD, NEAR MALLIGE HOSPITAL, MADAVA NAGARA, BENGALURU NORTH CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39887 WP No. 17603 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., C5 SUB-DIVISION, KAVAL BYRASADNRA, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560032.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., C5 SUB-DIVISION, KAVAL BYRASADNRA, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560032.

¶20

SMT. REVATHI W/O A. SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.108, DODDANNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; SMT. SINDHU V., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF RR.NO.G5LG29548 BY CANCELLING THE ELECTRIC CONNECTION ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING HER REPRESENTATION DATED 23.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F WITHIN A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39887 WP No. 17603 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to restore the electricity connection in her favour in respect of RR No. G5LG29548 by canceling the electric connection issued in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the residential premises bearing No. 231/1 (8/4), New No. 129, situated at Sandyavoo Nagar, Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru (schedule property).

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶31

counsel for respondents 1 to 4, as well as respondent No.5 are heard.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of electricity connection in favour of respondent No.5 during the pendency of O.S. No. 316/2012, preferred by the petitioner for declaration and injunction in respect of the schedule property is without

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39887 WP No. 17603 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

basis and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner has been in possession of the schedule property and has been regularly paying electricity bills. Respondent No.5 had earlier issued notice to the petitioner calling upon her to vacate the premises, which led to the filing of O.S. No. 316/2012 for appropriate declaratory and injunctive reliefs. It is further submitted that the petitioner has specifically disputed the title claimed by respondent No.5 over the said properties, and that the unilateral transfer of electricity connection in favour of respondent No.5 amounts to interference with the petitioner’s possession.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the electricity connection stands in the name of respondent No.5 pursuant to a registered sale deed executed in her favour in the year 2011. It is contended that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, in view of the pendency of O.S. No. 316/2012 before the competent Civil Court, where the petitioner has sought

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39887 WP No. 17603 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

declaration of ownership and injunction. It is contended that the question as to who is entitled to the electricity connection directly depends on the determination of ownership, which is a matter within the domain of the Civil Court.

¶40

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶41

submissions and perused the material on record.

¶42

It is not in dispute that O.S. No. 316/2012 has been instituted by the petitioner against respondent No.5 and her husband, seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of the very property. The rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated in the said suit. The dispute relating to ownership is essentially a civil dispute, and the legalities of the transfer of electricity connection will ultimately depend on the finding of the Civil Court. In light of the above circumstances, since O.S. No. 316/2012 is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, this Court deems it appropriate the

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39887 WP No. 17603 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

parties to work out their rights in the said suit. It is, however, observed that the continuance of the electricity connection either in favour of the petitioner or respondent No.5 shall be subject to the final outcome of O.S. No. 316/2012 pending before the Civil Court.

¶46

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the above observation.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶49

CKL

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Smt Lakshmi v. the Deputy General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmi v. the Deputy General Manager

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

Smt Devarajamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Bruhan Mutta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Laxmamma Vs State of Karnataka

P R Kumar @ D Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Akkayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka