Shri.Murali Dorai Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

SRI MURALI DORAI, S/O GOVINDASWAMY DORAI VELU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A NO. 829, 1^ST CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, BANASHANKARI, 3^RD STAGE, 2^ND PHASE, BENGLURU URBAN - 560 085.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶15

THE GENERAL MANAGER (EI) BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, O/0 GM (QUALITY STANDARDS AND SAFETY), K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (EI), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, O AND M CIRCLE, BENGALURU EAST, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, 2^ND BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:38867 WP No. 26492 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, E-7. K.R. PURAM SUB DIVISION, DOORAVANINAGAR, BILESHIVALE, BENGALURU - 560 077.

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(EI), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, WHITEFIELD DIVISION, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶22

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE, REP. BY COMMISSIONER, HUDSON CIRCLE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE FOLLOWING ORDERS NOTICE/ORDER DTD 14.05.2025 BEARING NO. AEE(E)/E7/AE9TA) 2024-25/232 ISSUED BY THE FORTH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) BESCOM DOORAVANINAGAR SUB DIVISION BENGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-W NOTICE/ORDER DATED 17.07.2025 BEARING NO.AEE(E)/E7/AE (TA) 2024-25/641 ISSUED BY THE FORTH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) BESCOM DOORAVANINAGAR SUB DIVISION BENGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-X AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:38867 WP No. 26492 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Challenging notices dated 14.05.2025 and 17.07.2025 issued by respondent no.4 as per Annexures-W and X and seeking for direction to respondent no.4 to restore power supply to building, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Sri V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was absolute owner of residential site no.14, property no.42, khata no.45, Kodigehalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, having purchased same under registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.2008 and Supplementary Deed dated 30.09.2022 as per Annexures-A and B. It was submitted that in terms of approved building plan and license, petitioner had constructed residential building thereon as per Annexures-C and D.

¶34

It was submitted that petitioner had constructed total number of 10 Flats in schedule property comprising of Ground and Five Upper floors. As per demand made, petitioner had paid property tax with regard to premises. For said building, petitioner had availed permanent power supply connection from respondents no.1 to 5 (BESCOM) with

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38867 WP No. 26492 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

installation bearing RR nos.MS7EEHK66992; MS7EEHK66988;

¶38

MS7EEHK66994; MS7EEHK66990; MS7EEHK66999; MS7EEHK66997; MS7EEHK66989; MS7EEHK66995 and

¶39

MS7EEHK66996 as mentioned in Annexure-V series.

¶40

Such being case, petitioner was issued with impugned notice to show-cause against disruption of power supply on ground that BBMP had informed that construction put up was unauthorised and without obtaining occupancy certificate. It was submitted that against orders passed by BBMP authorities alleging construction to be in violation of sanctioned plan and license, petitioner had preferred appeal before Commissioner. Pending consideration, disruption of power supply by respondent no.4 would not be justified. On said grounds sought for allowing writ petition.

¶41

On other hand, Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and who was directed to accept notice for respondents no. 1 to 3 and 5 also; Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 opposed writ petition. It was submitted, mere pendency of appeal before Commissioner - respondent no.6, would not discharge

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38867 WP No. 26492 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

respondents from performing their statutory functions and especially in view of directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and

¶45

Another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767 . On said grounds sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶46

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused writ

¶47

petition.

¶48

From above, it is seen that petitioner’s grievance against notices at Annexures-W and X issued by respondent no.4 is that it was issued at instance of respondents based on orders passed under Sections 248(1) and 248(3) of BBMP Act. Since said orders were under challenge in appeal and same was under consideration.

¶49

If it is so, initiation of action by respondents pending appeal would not be justified. Therefore, notices at Annexures-W and X stand discharged reserving liberty to respondent no.4 to take action, if found necessary, after disposal of appeal.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38867 WP No. 26492 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

A direction is issued to respondent no.6 to dispose of appeal within a period of two months from date of receipt of 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.

¶53

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.

¶54

With above observations, writ petition is disposed of .

¶55

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶56

GRD

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Shri.Murali Dorai v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Murali Dorai v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

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)

Smt. Nusrath Azra Vs the Commissioner

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

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