Smt. Nusrath Azra Vs the Commissioner

SMT. NUSRATH AZRA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O. SMT. S. BHANU, R/A NO.268, 1^ST 'D' MAIN ROAD, N.S. PARTY HALL, LAST BUS STOP, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 060.

¶10

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

REP BY HER GPA HOLDER M/S. SUPREME STRUCTURES PROPRIETOR MR. K. GURUMURTHY S/O SRI K. YERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.129/4, ANU ARCADE, 2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR HOYSALA CIRCLE, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 060.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI MAHAMMED ASFAK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MANJUNATHA S.V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38866 WP No. 24961 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BBMP, BANGALORE RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA ZONE, SUB DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, BBMP, BANGALORE RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA ZONE, 18^TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K-4 SUB DIVISION, BESCOM, R.R. NAGAR LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI LOKESHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION NOTICE BEARING NO.SUM/SAKAANIEM(V) /K4/SA.AA/TAA/25-26-3649-53 DATED 19.07.2025 BY R4 DIRECTING DISCONNECTION OF POWER SUPPLY TO THE PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS EVIDENCED BY ANNXD.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:38866 WP No. 24961 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Challenging show cause notice dated 19.07.2025 at Annexure-D issued by respondent no.4, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

Sri Mahammed Asfak, advocate appearing for Sri Manjunatha S.V., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was owner of residential site no.268, BBMP Khata no.1825/191/268/1811, situated at 1^st D Main Road, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore, measuring 2400 sq.ft. It was submitted, petitioner had entered into Joint Development Agreement (' JDA ') for construction on said site with M/s. Supreme Structures. In terms of JDA, sanction of building plan was obtained from respondents no.1 to 3 and construction completed. However on 10.07.2025, respondents no.1 to 3 had affixed notices under Sections 248(1), 248(2) and 248(3) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, (' BBMP Act ' for short) without serving copies of notices in person or providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner prior to passing of said orders.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:38866 WP No. 24961 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

It was submitted, aggrieved by same, petitioner

¶36

had preferred Appeal no.242/2025 on 31.07.2025 as per Annexure-C. However during pendency of appeal, respondent no.4 had issued impugned show-cause notice on an intimation by respondents no.2 and 3. It was submitted, since petitioner had preferred appeal and same was under consideration, disconnection of power supply pending appeal would not be justified. It was submitted under similar circumstances, this Court in WP no.16631/2025 disposed of on 22.08.2025 had directed BESCOM to permit petitioner to file objections and consider same in accordance with law, keeping in mind direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767 . On above grounds, sought for allowing writ petition.

¶37

On other hand, Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Lokesha K, learned counsel for respondent no.4 opposed writ petition. It was submitted, mere pendency of appeal before respondent no.1 would not discharge respondents from performing their statutory functions and especially in view of directions issued by Hon’ble

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:38866 WP No. 24961 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya ’s case (supra). On said grounds sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶42

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶43

record.

¶44

From above, it is seen that petitioner’s grievance against show-cause notice at Annexure-D issued by respondent no.4 is that it was issued at instance of respondents no.2 and 3 based on orders passed under Sections 248(1) and 248(3) of BBMP Act. Since said orders were under challenge in Appeal no.242/2025 and same was under consideration, respondents would not be justified in taking action against petitioner.

¶45

Perusal of Annexure-C would indicate that petitioner has preferred appeal before respondent no.1. If it is so, initiation of action by respondents pending appeal would not be justified. Therefore, show-cause notice at Annexure-D stands discharged reserving liberty to respondent no.4 to take action, if found necessary, after disposal of appeal by respondent no.1.

¶46

A direction is issued to respondent no.1 to dispose of appeal within a period of two months from date of receipt of

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:38866 WP No. 24961 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

certified copy of this order, but keeping in mind directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya’s case (supra) and intimate result of appeal to respondent no.4.

¶51

Until then respondent no.4 is directed to continue power supply to petitioner's premises subject to payment of consumption charges or advance consumption charges as applicable.

¶52

With above observations, writ petition is disposed of .

¶53

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶54

GRD

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Smt. Nusrath Azra v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nusrath Azra v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prestige Tranquillity Apartment Owners Association Ptaoa Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri. Basavaraja Shastry Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Latha v Vs the Executive Engineer (Ele)

Shri.Murali Dorai Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri.P. Vijay @ Viojayraj Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Avant Garde Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissionr of Exicse