Sri. B. S. Suresh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. B. S. Suresh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 (BESCOM) to restore electricity supply to the petitioner's building (R.R.No.7SKTP28863), conditional on the petitioner putting up no further construction until disposal of his appeal before the Appellate Authority; 15 days granted to file the appeal, during which respondent No.2 shall not take precipitative action; the prayer to quash the disconnection order itself was not granted, the petitioner being relegated to the statutory appeal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who did not appeal the order dated 13.05.2025 passed under Sections 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 before the Appellate Authority, could obtain relief in this writ petition against the consequential disconnection order dated 07.07.2025. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the order under Sections 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 was passed on 13.05.2025, the petitioner was bound to file an appeal within 30 days as prescribed.

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of an appeal against the order dated 13.05.2025, respondent No.2 was justified in directing disconnection of electricity supply to the building constructed by the petitioner.

Key takeaways

It is appropriate to permit the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appropriate Authority.ratio¶¶42
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were directed to restore electricity supply to the petitioner's building, conditional on the petitioner not putting up any further construction of whatsoever nature until the appeal before the Appellate Authority is disposed of.ratio¶¶42
If the petitioner puts up any further construction of whatsoever nature, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to approach this Court seeking orders to stop such construction or seal the building of the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj, J.) — Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 07.07.2025 (No.BBMP/Sa.Ka.Aa/Do.U.Vi/53/2025-26) of the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Doddanekkundi Sub-Division, directing disconnection of electricity supply to the petitioner's building under construction, issued pursuant to an order dated 13.05.2025 under Sections 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020. Held: the petitioner was bound to appeal against the 13.05.2025 order within the prescribed 30 days, and in default the direction to disconnect electricity was justified. The Court nonetheless permitted the petitioner to file an appeal and directed BESCOM (respondent Nos.3 and 4) to restore supply to R.R.No.7SKTP28863 on condition that no further construction of whatsoever nature be carried out until disposal of the appeal, with liberty to BBMP to approach the Court to stop such construction or seal the building; 15 days were granted to file the appeal, with protection from precipitative action expressly limited to that 15-day period; all contentions kept open.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48983 WP No. 26450 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 26450 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B.S. SURESH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SHAMANNA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.454, 4^TH CROSS, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560103

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER B B M P, DODDANEKKUNDI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560037.

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560009.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) S-7, ASWATH NAGAR MARATHHALLI, BESCOM, BENGALURU-560037

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

SRI. LIKITH R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48983 WP No. 26450 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 IN NO.BBMP/SA.KA.AA/DO.U.VI/ 53/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, DODDANEKKUNDI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU -560037, i.e., RESPONDENT NO.2, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY RR NO.7SKTP28863 FORTHWITH TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.BBMP/Sa.Ka.Aa/Do.U.Vi/53/2025-26 dated 07.07.2025 issued by respondent No.2 directing disconnection of electricity supply to the building under construction by the petitioner. He has also sought for a direction to respondent No.4 to restore electricity supply to R.R.No.7SKTP28863.

The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under Sections 248(1) and 248(2) and thereafter passed an order under Sections 248(3) and 356(1)

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48983 WP No. 26450 of 2025

HC-KAR

of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP Act' for short). He further contends that he has put up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the licence issued by respondent No.1. He contends that the building constructed is provided with electricity and he is paying consumption charges. When things stood thus, respondent No.2 in terms of his communication dated 07.07.2025, directed respondent No.4 to disconnect the electricity supply to the petitioner's building. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order of respondent No.2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order passed under Section 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 before the Chief Commissioner and that respondent No.2 has hurriedly issued the impugned order directing disconnection of electricity supply to the building in question. He submits that the petitioner would immediately file an appeal before the Chief Commissioner and that a direction be issued to respondent No.4 to restore the electricity supply.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48983 WP No. 26450 of 2025

HC-KAR

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner ought to have challenged the order dated 13.05.2025 passed under Sections 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 before the Appellate Authority. He contends that since the petitioner did not challenge the said order, respondent No.2 had no option than to direct disconnection of electricity supply, as the construction put up was not in accordance with the sanctioned plan. He therefore submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

I have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The fact that an order invoking Sections 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 was passed, is not disputed by the petitioner. Ideally, the petitioner must have challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority in the manner known to law. Since the order under Section 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 was passed on 13.05.2025, the petitioner was bound to file an appeal within 30 days as prescribed. If the

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48983 WP No. 26450 of 2025

HC-KAR

appeal is not filed, respondent No.2 was justified in directing disconnection of electricity supply to the building constructed by the petitioner.

Be that as it may, since the petitioner has now stated that he would file an appeal, it is appropriate to permit the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appropriate Authority. At the same time, it is also appropriate to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to restore the electricity supply to the building constructed by the petitioner, subject however to the condition that the petitioner shall not put up any further construction of whatsoever nature until the appeal before the Appellate Authority is disposed off.

It is made clear that if the petitioner puts up any further construction of whatsoever nature, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to approach this Court seeking orders to stop such construction or seal the building of the petitioner.

The petitioner is granted 15 days time to file an before appellate authority. It is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief before the Appellate Authority. Until

NC: 2025:KHC:48983 WP No. 26450 of 2025

6 -

HC-KAR

the filing of an appeal within 15 days, respondent No.2 shall not take any precipitative action against the building constructed by the petitioner. It is made clear that this protection is granted only for a period of 15 days and shall not be construed as if it is continued till the appeal is disposed off.

All contentions are kept open.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

HJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15