Mrs.Gangavarapu Prashanthi Vs State of Karnataka

MRS.GANGAVARAPU PRASHANTHI, W/O SRI SANDEEP KUMAR B., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.6-103A, REVELLAVARI PALEML VILLAGE, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, JUVVI GUNTA PRAKASAM, ANDRA PRADESH 523 270. REP BY HER GPA HOLDER GANGAVARAPU BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O VENKATARAMANAIAH GANGAVARAPU

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO 236, 2^ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36001 WP No. 26019 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MAHANAGARA PALILKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002.

¶21

THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, EAST SUB-DIVISION NO.4, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:36001 WP No. 26019 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed challenging notice dated 21.07.2025 issued by respondent no. 4 at Annexure-D.

¶33

Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is owner of site no.7 formed in property bearing no.65/2B present BBMP Khata no.114/220/Sy.no.65/2B and converted property no.64/4, BBMP present Khata no.99/Sy.no.64/4 converted from agricultural to residential purpose vide order no.44/2023-24 dated 02.02.2024 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, situated at Pattandur Agrahara Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, measuring East to West 65 feet and North to South 30 fee in all totally measuring 1950 sq.ft.

¶34

It was submitted, petitioner had purchased said property under registered Sale Deed dated 23.05.2024 as per Annexure-A. Thereafter name of petitioner was entered in revenue records and paid tax upto date. It was submitted petitioner has constructed a building thereon and obtained electricity and water connection. Such being case, respondent

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36001 WP No. 26019 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

no.2 passed provisional order under Section 248 (1) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, (' Act ' for short) issued show-cause against disruption of power supply under Section 248 (2) of Act and thereafter passed confirmation order under Section 248 (3) of Act.

¶38

It was submitted in pursuance of same, respondent no.4 disconnected power supply. At that time petitioner was served with copy of notice dated 21.07.2025 at Annexure-D. Perusal of same would reveal that notice was issued to incorrect address and therefore not received by petitioner. Consequently, disruption of power supply by respondents would be in violation of principles of natural justice and sought for quashing of same.

¶39

On other hand, Smt.Vaheeda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1; Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri H.V. Deavaraju, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 opposed writ petition. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others , reported in 2024 SCC

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36001 WP No. 26019 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

OnLine SC 3767 , had directed authorities to not to sanction power and to disconnect power supply given to buildings constructed illegally. It was submitted that on inspection and finding that building put up by petitioner was in deviation, action was taken by respondents under Section 248 of Act. After passing provisional order and confirmation order, an order for demolition was also issued under Section 356 of Act and intimation of same issued to BESCOM authorities. Based on same, notice at Annexure-D was issued and same would be in terms of directions and therefore unassailable.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 would

¶44

submit that based on intimation given by respondent no.2, notice was issued and same was unexceptionable.

¶45

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶46

record.

¶47

Bare perusal of writ petition averments would reveal that there is no dispute about petitioner being owner of land in question, construction put up by her thereon and availing power supply from respondents no.3 and 4. However,

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:36001 WP No. 26019 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respondents allege that construction put up by petitioner was in violation of building bye-laws and building permission and therefore, action was initiated against same and intimation given to BESCOM for disconnection of power supply.

¶52

However, it is seen that notice issued to petitioner at Annexure-D, mere mentions name of notice as Prashanthi and address as site no.7, 6^th Main Road, Prithvi Layout, ECC Road, Kadugodi, Bengaluru. Full name of petitioner is Gangavarapu Prashanthi, whereas location of property as stated in Schedule-B of Sale Deed at Annexure-A is different. This would substantiate petitioner's contention that notice at Annexure-D was not received until at time of disconnection of power supply. If it is so, it would be appropriate to provide petitioner sometime to reply and direct respondents to consider same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶53

In view of above, writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to permit petitioner to file objections to notice dated 21.07.2025 at Annexure-D within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order,

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36001 WP No. 26019 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

appending relevant records to substantiate that building constructed by petitioner was as per law and if petitioner has preferred appeal against orders sought under Section 248 of Act, to state whether any interim order is granted therein and produce copy thereof.

¶57

On receipt of reply/objections, respondents no.3 and 4 are directed to obtain say of respondent no.2 - BBMP thereon and thereafter pass appropriate orders within three weeks keeping in mind directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court at para-21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya 's case (supra) and intimate result to petitioner.

¶58

In case, petitioner has filed appeal, obtained interim order and appeal is pending, then consideration to be deferred till final orders are passed therein.

¶59

Till then, respondents are directed to continue power supply subject to petitioner paying consumption charges.

¶60

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶61

GRD

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Mrs.Gangavarapu Prashanthi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Gangavarapu Prashanthi v. State of Karnataka

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

Shri Sheetal K Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Gowramma Vs the Executive Engineer

M.R. Shivalingaswamy Vs the Commissioner of Excise

M/S Shiva Irrigation Systems Vs the Managing Director

The Managing Director Vs B v Thippeswamy

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