Disposed¶48

M/S Shiva Irrigation Systems v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2025WP/24573/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; electricity connection and cabling work; KPTCL approval intimation dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-D); BESCOM representations dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-B) and 17.04.2025 (Annexure-E); independent switchgear; power permitted from F-25 feeder by independent line; drawing power from F-16 feeder line to KMF not permitted; 110/11KV Gubbi Substation; small scale industry manufacturing PVC pipes, HDPE pipes, drip irrigation equipment; Tumakuru; petition disposed of with direction to intimate charges within one week.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents no.1 and 4 (BESCOM) to consider the petitioner's representations at Annexures-B and E and intimate charges payable within one week, keeping in mind the KPTCL approval at Annexure-D. ¶48

M/S Shiva Irrigation Systems Vs the Managing… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents should be directed to complete the cabling work as per the communication dated 19.03.2025 issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure-D) and provide an independent switchgear to the petitioner's industry. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Respondents no.1 and 4 were directed to consider the petitioner's applications/representations at Annexures-B and E and issue appropriate intimation about charges payable within one week, keeping in mind the approval granted by KPTCL as per Annexure-D.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The intimation of sanction permits the petitioner to avail power from the F-25 feeder by drawing an independent line.

¶43

Key takeaways

The approval granted does not permit the petitioner to draw power from the F-16 feeder line drawn to KMF; consequently the respondents' apprehension on that score is unsustainable and without basis.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ravi V Hosmani, J.) disposed of Writ Petition No. 24573 of 2025 (GM-KEB), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by M/s Shiva Irrigation Systems, a proprietorship manufacturing PVC pipes, water tanks, HDPE pipes, mulching paper and drip irrigation equipment at Gubbi, Tumakuru, seeking completion of cabling work and an independent switchgear as per KPTCL intimation dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-D). The Court held that the sanction permits the petitioner to avail power from the F-25 feeder by drawing an independent line and confers no right to draw power from the F-16 feeder line drawn to KMF, rendering the respondents' apprehension unsustainable and without basis. Respondents no.1 and 4 (BESCOM) were directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-B) and 17.04.2025 (Annexure-E) and issue intimation of charges payable within one week, keeping in mind the KPTCL approval at Annexure-D.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36734 WP No. 24573 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 24573 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S SHIVA IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SY.NO.121/7, MUDIGERE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 576 216, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. K.P. RAVISH, S/O K.S. PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.N. SHASHIDHAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.S. SUHAS, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELEC.), KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, TRANSMISSION (OPERATIONS) ZONE, PRASARANA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR, 66/11 KV S/S PREMISES, TUMAKURU - 572 103.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36734 WP No. 24573 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELEC.), TRANSMISSION, OANDM CIRCLE, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, PRASARANA BHAVANA, GROUND FLOOR, KOTI, THOPUROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 103.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.LTD., O AND M DIVISION, TUMAKURU DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572 102.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPLETE THE CABLING WORK AS PER THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.03.2025 VIDE BEARING NO.CEE/TKR/TZ/SEE(O)/AEE1/2024-25/13313-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-D WITH REGARD TO PROVIDING AN INDEPENDENT SWITCHGEAR INDUSTRY AND TO THE PETITIONERS INDUSTRY AN ETC.,

¶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

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36734 WP No. 24573 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Writ Petition is filed for directing respondents to complete cable work as per communication dated 19.03.2025 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-D and to provide independent switchgear to petitioner’s industry.

¶29

Heard Sri H.N. Shashidhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri S.H.Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 4 and Sri H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is running two small scale industries under name and style of M/s.Shiva Irrigation Systems for manufacture of PVC pipes, water tanks, HDPE pipes, mulching paper, drip irrigation equipment and sprinklers and etc. For said industry, petitioner had sought for power supply from Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, ‘ KPTCL ’) and Bangalore

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:36734 WP No. 24573 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, ‘ BESCOM ’). KPTCL had granted approval as per intimation dated 19.03.2025 at Annexure-D. Petitioner's representation to respondents no.1 and 4 -BESCOM on 19.11.2024 as per Annexure-B and 17.04.2025 as per Annexure-E had remained without consideration and, therefore, sought for allowing of Writ Petition.

¶35

Sri S.H. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 4 and Sri H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 would oppose Writ Petition.

¶36

It was submitted by learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 that on receipt of petitioner's application, KPTCL had examined feasibility and issued intimation of approval as per Annexure-D subject to conditions. It was submitted that petitioner's request for drawing of independent line from 110/11KV Gubbi Substation was approved. But, petitioner’s request for

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:36734 WP No. 24573 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

providing connection through independent transmission line drawn from F-16 feeder to KMF cannot be permitted.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 4 submitted that since petitioner was seeking for drawing power Line from F-16 feeder to KMF, same had remained pending. It was submitted that in case petitioner confined his request for drawing power from F-25 feeder line independently from that of KMF Line, intimation for applicable charges would be given. Petitioner would be intimated about estimate of charges within one week.

¶42

On perusal of intimation of sanction by

¶43

respondents no.2 and 3, it is seen that petitioner is permitted to avail power from F-25 feeder by drawing an independent line. Approval granted would not give room for any confusion that petitioner would be permitted to draw power from F-16 feeder line drawn to KMF. Such being case, apprehension of respondents would be unsustainable and without basis. Moreover, learned

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:36734 WP No. 24573 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

counsel appearing for petitioner specifically submits that petitioner would undertake works under self-execution strictly as per approval as per Annexure-D.

¶48

In view of above, there would be no impediment for disposal of Writ Petition by directing respondents no.1 and 4 to consider petitioner's application/representation at Annexures-B and E and issue appropriate intimation about charges payable within one week from today, by keeping in mind approval granted by KPTCL as per Annexure-D. In terms of above, writ petition

¶49

stands disposed of .

¶50

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶51

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK

M/S Shiva Irrigation Systems v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shiva Irrigation Systems v. the Managing Director

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

Shri Sheetal K Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Gowramma Vs the Executive Engineer

M.R. Shivalingaswamy Vs the Commissioner of Excise

The Managing Director Vs B v Thippeswamy

Mrs.Gangavarapu Prashanthi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N S Selva Raj Vs Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited (Chescom)