Sri Basi Redd Jayrami Reddy Vs the Asst Executive Engineer

S/O. LATE. KOPPOLUJAGAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7-4-76, CHEMUDUR, CHENNAMPALLI PANCHAYITI BADAVEL MANDAMALA CUDDAPAH DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 210

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39987 WP No. 25959 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED

¶20

K-1 SUB-DIVISION, I FLOOR, T.T.M.C. BUILDING, KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 060.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. PATIL BHEEMANGOUDA BASANAGOUDA., ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ADDL. ENDORSEMENTS BEARING NO. SA.KA.NI. IMM(V)/KINEUV/SALE/2025-26 DATED 01/04/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EFFECTING DISCONNECTION OF THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER, PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39987 WP No. 25959 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the endorsement dated 01.04.2025 at AnnexureA issued by the respondent for disconnection of electricity supply to the schedule property and to issue a direction to the respondent to restore the electricity connection in respect of the petitioners' schedule property.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has disconnected the electricity connection on the ground that the sanctioned building plan of the petitioners' has been cancelled. It is submitted that against the cancellation of the sanctioned plan by the competent authority, the petitioners have approached this

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39987 WP No. 25959 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Court in WP.No.12859/2025, in which this Court has

¶35

granted an interim order of protection staying the operation of the cancellation order. It is therefore submitted that, in light of the subsisting interim order, the respondent ought to restore the electricity connection to the petitioners' schedule property, subject to the final outcome in WP.No.12859/2025.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the sanctioned plan was cancelled by the BBMP after following the due procedure, and that pursuant to such cancellation, the respondent issued notice to the petitioners and disconnected the electricity supply.

¶37

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶38

It is settled principle of law that access to electricity is the basic necessity for the human existence and enjoyment of property. Though the respondent

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39987 WP No. 25959 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

contends that the petitioners' sanctioned plan has been cancelled, the said cancellation order has already been challenged in WP.No.12859/2025, and the operation of the cancellation order has been stayed by this Court. In such circumstances, the disconnection of electricity during the pendency of the said writ petition and in the face of the interim protection is unwarranted. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to restore the electricity connection to the petitioners' schedule property within one week from the date of receipt of this order, which shall, however, be subject to the final outcome of WP.No.12859/2025.

¶42

With the said observations and direction, the writ

¶43

petition stands disposed of .

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶46

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Basi Redd Jayrami Reddy v. the Asst Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Basi Redd Jayrami Reddy v. the Asst Executive Engineer

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

P R Kumar @ D Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmi Vs the Deputy General Manager

Smt Akkayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B S Nagarathnamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri Jaimuni Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri B N Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka