Sri K P Ravish Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Co.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF. NO. KANIIM (VI)/ SAKANIIM(KA)/TUVI/2025-26/10544 DATED 04.08.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE ORDER, DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPLETE THE WORK AND PROVIDE ELECTRICAL CONNECTION AND POWER SUPPLY PETITIONERS M/S. VENKATESHWARA ENGINEERING WORKS AND ELECTRICALS AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34521 WP No. 24551 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Challenging endorsement dated 04.08.2025 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-A and seeking for a direction to complete installation work and provide electricity connection to petitioner's industry, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

Sri H.N.Shashidhara, learned Senior counsel for petitioner submitted petitioner is Proprietor of M/s.Venkateshwara Engineering Works and Electrical Works at Mudigere Village, M.H.Patna, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. He had filed an application for electricity connection for said industrial unit. Application received was numbered as HT2224104250044 and field report obtained as per Annexures-B and C, respectively. It was submitted that as per field report at Annexure-C, respondents had submitted feasibility for providing connection to petitioner's industry from F-06 Madapura NJY Feeder. When petitioner sought for modification of same to F16 KMF Feeder, petitioner was issued with impugned endorsement at Annexure-A. It was submitted reason for non-processing of petitioner’s application was stated to be an enquiry pending against Engineer. Same would not

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:34521 WP No. 24551 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

justify respondents keeping petitioner’s application under

¶35

cold-storage and therefore, sought for interference.

¶36

Sri R.P.Likith, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3, on other hand, submitted perusal of field report at Annexure-C would indicate that respondents had examined feasibility of providing connection to petitioner from F-06 Madapura NJY Feeder. It was submitted since petitioner had requested for providing connection from F-16 Feeder instead, petitioner was issued with an endorsement. It was submitted that F16 Feeder was a dedicated feeder to cater to KMF under self-execution and petitioner cannot be provided power supply connection from it. It was further submitted that field report projected supervision charges at ₹18,01,087/-. On deposit of said amount, there would be no impediment for respondents to process petitioner's application for providing connection. Thereafter, respondents would have no objection for considering petitioner's application for power connection under self-execution.

¶37

In reply, learned Senior counsel for petitioner submitted that supervision charges would be deposited

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34521 WP No. 24551 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

immediately and respondents may be directed to consider petitioner's application forthwith.

¶41

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition papers on record

¶42

In view of above and taking note of facts and circumstances wherein, petitioner is seeking for consideration of application for power supply, and learned counsel for respondents has submitted that there would be no impediment for consideration of petitioner's application from F-06 Madapura

¶43

NJY Feeder line, writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to consider petitioner's application for grant of power sanction within a period of two weeks after petitioner deposits supervision charges with applicable taxes etc.,

¶44

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶45

VM

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:34521 WP No. 24551 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI K P RAVISH VS. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO LTD AND OTHERS]

¶51

11.09.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶52

ORAL ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’

¶53

This Writ Petition was disposed of on 03.09.2025, with

¶54

directions in para-6 as follows:

¶55

“6. In view of above and taking note of fact and circumstances wherein, petitioner is seeking for consideration of application for power supply, and learned counsel for respondents has submitted that there would be no impediment for consideration of petitioner's application from F-06 Madapura NJY Feeder line, writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to consider petitioner's application for grant of power sanction within a period of two weeks after petitioner deposits supervision charges with applicable taxes etc.”

¶56

However, matter was later moved for ‘Being Spoken To’, wherein it was submitted that as an independent line from F-25 Feeder, (from same sub-station) was under consideration for M/s. Shiva Irrigation System, said line could be extended to petitioner also and undertook to file application for same.

¶57

In reply, learned counsel for respondents submitted, said

¶58

request would be considered only after completion of work for

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:34521 WP No. 24551 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

drawing of 11 KV line from F-25 Feeder to M/s. Shiva Irrigation Systems, which was acceptable to petitioner.

¶63

Hence, para-6 in order dated 03.09.2025 is modified as follows:

¶64

"6. In view of above and taking note of facts and circumstances wherein, petitioner is seeking for consideration of application for power supply, and learned counsel for respondents has submitted that there would be no impediment for consideration of petitioner's application 'from F25 Feeder line drawn through 11 KV line, from said Feeder to M/s.Shiva Irrigation Systems (proposed) within two weeks after execution of said work and undertakes to make payment of necessary supervision charges with applicable taxes etc,

¶65

Writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to consider petitioner's application for grant of power sanction within a period of two weeks after petitioner deposits supervision charges with applicable taxes etc.,"

¶66

This order is to be read in conjunction with order passed on 03.09.2025.

¶67

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶68

hnm

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri K P Ravish v. the Bangalore Electricity Supply Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K P Ravish v. the Bangalore Electricity Supply Co.

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

Sri. R. Mahesh, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.M. Chandrashekar Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Smt. v Savitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Faizya Farook Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Emerald Agency Vs Mr. Zakirulla Shariff

Sri Mohan Prasad K C Vs the Assistant Executive Entginer (Ele)