Gowrishankar Vs State of Karnataka

SMT. P. PADAMALATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WIFE OF N. SATHYAPRASAAD NO.1, D.K.AGENCIES, I “A” CROSS, MARENAHALI, J.P.NAGAR 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560078. …RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI RAJ KUMAR M., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5; SRI LIKITH R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; SRI SUNDAR RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-9)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 19.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE 6^TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO. KRA.SAM.SAKANIE(V)/S-6-SAE(T)/2025-26/821 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY TO PROVIDE POWER OF SUPPLY TO THE PETITIONER PROPERTY AND ALSO; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 5 TO GIVE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER TO LAY PIPELINE TO HIS PROPERTY BEARING NO.62, OLD NO.61/1-121, PID.NO.57-240-62, WARD NO.57, SITUATED AT SARRAKKI VILLAGE J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.

¶27

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

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:46803 WP No. 26202 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶34

“a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI / OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ DIRECTION / ORDER for quashing the Letter dated 19.05.2025 issued by the 6^th Respondent bearing No.KRA.SAM.SAKANIE(V)/S-6SAE(T)/2025-26/821 produced at ANNEXURE-G and consequently to provide power of supply to the Petitioner property and also;

¶35

b) for a Writ of Mandamus / any order / writ / direction, directing the Respondents No.1 to 5 to give protection to the Petitioner to lay pipeline to his property bearing No.62, Old No.61/1-121, PID.No.57-240-62, Ward No.57, situated at Sarrakki Village, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560 078 by allowing the Writ Petition.

¶36

c) Grant such other relief/s that this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

Brief facts :

¶38

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of property bearing No.62 old No.61/1-121, PID

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46803 WP No. 26202 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

No.57-240-62, Ward No.57, situated at Sarakki Village, JP Nagar, Bengaluru, obtained through a registered gift deed dated 14.06.2010 and claims to have constructed a residential house wherein he is residing. The petitioner thereafter secured BWSSB order for water connection, paid BBMP road cutting charges, and applied to BESCOM for electricity supply.

¶42

Respondent Nos.7 to 9 interfered with the petitioner's possession, claiming rights under an unregistered agreement of sale dated 13.11.1991, leading to O.S. No.1182/2021 filed by the petitioner, wherein the civil Court granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

¶43

However, respondent No.6-BESCOM rejected the

¶44

request of power supply, citing pendency of the suit. Further, when the petitioner attempted to lay water pipeline in terms of BWSSB permission, respondent Nos.7 to 9 obstructed and respondent No.5 (the Inspector of Police), prevented the

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46803 WP No. 26202 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

work and failed to grant protection despite subsisting injunction.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 cannot refuse electricity connection on the ground of pendency of civil suit, statutory services cannot be denied in the absence of a restrained order on such supply from a competent civil Court. He submits that respondent Nos.1 to 5, instead of enforcing the injunction order, which is granted in favour of the petitioner, are preventing the petitioner from exercising lawful rights and permissions issued by BWSSB and BBMP. The petitioner and his family members are residing in the constructed house without basic necessity due to the illegal action of the authorities and Annexure-G issued by respondent No.6 is arbitrary and is unsustainable.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-

¶50

BESCOM submits that in light of there being no clarity on ownership and since the matter is pending before the Civil

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46803 WP No. 26202 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Court, BESCOM is unable to grant electricity until final adjudication.

¶54

Though respondent Nos.7 to 9 are represented by

¶55

counsel, there is no representation though the matter is listed for further hearing as well.

¶56

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶57

contentions and perused the material on record.

¶58

The pendency of a civil suit by itself, does not bar a statutory authority from extending essential services such as electricity and water supply, particularly in the absence of any prohibitory order from the Civil Court. The petitioner enjoys an injunction order in O.S No.1182/2021 protecting his possession. BWSSB and BBMP have issued necessary permission, and the denial of electricity by respondent No.6 is unsustainable, obstruction by private respondents cannot be a ground for denying statutory facility. However, the title dispute between the parties is pending adjudication before the Civil Court, and this Court cannot examine the disputed facts in writ jurisdiction. The parties are to pursue their

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46803 WP No. 26202 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

remedy before the competent Civil Court in respect of title and permanent rights also insofar as alleged obstruction by respondent Nos.7 to 9 in laying the pipeline. Accordingly this Court pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The writ petition is partly allowed .

¶64

ii. The letter dated 19.05.2025 issued by respondent No.6 at Annexure-G is quashed .

¶65

iii. Respondent No.6 is directed to provide electricity supply to the schedule property bearing No.62 old No.61/1-121, PID No.57-240-62, Ward No.57, situated at Sarakki Village, JP Nagar, Bengaluru, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, subject to the petitioner complying with all the requisite procedural and safety requirements.

¶66

iv. Insofar as prayer ‘b’ (seeking protection against alleged obstruction by respondent Nos.7 to 9) is concerned, it is clarified that such relief pertains to the realm of civil rights and possession. The

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:46803 WP No. 26202 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

petitioner is therefore reserved liberty to approach the competent Civil Court in O.S. No.1182/2021 by filing an appropriate application therein, seeking necessary civil protection and further orders for enforcement of the subsisting injunction order.

¶71

v. If such an application is filed, the Civil Court shall consider such application independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced by this order.

¶72

vi. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the civil rights or title of the parties.

¶73

vii. All the parties are at liberty to adjudicate their rights before the competent Civil Court in O.S. No.1182/2021 and the Civil Court shall decide the same in accordance with law.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶76

MBM

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Gowrishankar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowrishankar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H K Kodandarama Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

Smt.Lalitha v Vs State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer Vs G R Manjunatha

Smt S Bhagirathi Vs Bescom Electric Supply Company Ltd.

Syed Waseem a S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Puttalakshmamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner