Disposed¶53

Smt Latha v. Vs the Executive Engineer (Ele)

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2025WP/26892/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: BESCOM electricity disconnection notice; BBMP trade licence; car wash service station; effluent treatment plant; Lokayukta complaint; owner versus tenant liability; electricity installation RR C8CLG7589; water supply connection; interim injunction in OS 1066/2025; consideration of petitioner's reply Annexure-P; impugned notice Annexure-A dated 11.07.2025; Articles 226 & 227; writ petition disposed (GM-KEB); Thindlu/Vidyaranyapura/Yelahanka, Bengaluru; Ravi V Hosmani J.; I.A.1/2025 disposed as unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the above observations (respondents to consider petitioner's reply Annexure-P before acting on Annexure-A, and free to continue action until compliance is reported); I.A.no.1/2025 stands disposed of as unnecessary. ¶53

Smt Latha v Vs the Executive Engineer (Ele) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure-A) is liable to be quashed on the petitioner's contention that, violations being attributable to her tenant running the car wash, she as owner of the premises who obtained the electricity connection could not be penalised by disruption of power supply. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

A suit pending against the property in question and an operating order of injunction cannot be employed by the petitioner to perpetuate violation in respect of the premises as noted by the authorities, and an inter partes injunction cannot come in the way of the authorities functioning unless the authorities themselves are injuncted against taking action.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's grievance was that her reply to the Annexure-A notice had not been considered, it would only be fair that the respondents consider the petitioner's reply before taking action in pursuance of the notice at Annexure-A.

¶46

Key takeaways

It is open for the respondents to continue taking action until the petitioner or her tenant reports compliance of usage of the premises as per law (text records 'petitioner or his tenant').ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Ravi V Hosmani, J.), oral order dated 24.09.2025 in WP No. 26892/2025 (GM-KEB): The petitioner, owner (with her son) of property bearing Sy.no.74, BBMP Khata no.1039/45/74/1P, Thindlu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru (electricity installation RR no.C8CLG7589), had leased the premises to a tenant running a car washing service station. She challenged notice dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent no.2, Asst. Executive Engineer, BESCOM, which followed BBMP inspection said to have found the car wash operating without trade licence and without effluent treatment plant, after a report was called for on complaints to Hon'ble Lokayukta. The Court, noting that the petitioner's reply (Annexure-P dated 16.07.2025) had not been considered, observed that it would only be fair for the respondents to consider that reply before taking action in pursuance of Annexure-A. On the merits the Court observed that a pending suit (OS no.1066/2025, Smt.Munirathnamma v. petitioner) and an operating inter partes injunction could not be employed by the petitioner to perpetuate violation, nor could such injunction come in the way of the authorities functioning unless the authorities themselves were injuncted, leaving the respondents free to continue taking action until the petitioner or her tenant reported compliance of usage of the premises as per law. Writ petition disposed of; I.A.no.1/2025 disposed of as unnecessary.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 26892 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LATHA V., W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT-NO.12/292, 1^ST CROSS, THINDLU, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.S. BYRE REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, JALAHALLI DIVISION IS NO. 22, MVR PERIODS DEFENCE LAYOUT, DEVI CIRCLE, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶15

THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, (COM. O ... C-9 TATANAGAR SUB DIVISION), VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, (ELE.) BESCOM, VIRUPAKSHAPURA DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶17

THE JOINT ZONAL COMMISSIONER, THE BBMP, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE HEALTH OFFICER, THE BBMP, YELAHANKA DIVISION, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI LOKESHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 11.07.2025 i.e., ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an application was filed for impleading Hon'ble Lokayukta, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Health Officer and Sri R. Shantha Kumar. But, consideration of same would not be necessary, since petitioner's grievance against notice at Annexure-A. Said notice would mention about issuance of an earlier notice to petitioner which was not received and in any case, petitioner had thereafter filed reply to Annexure-A as per Annexure-P and same was not yet considered.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel would therefore submit that

¶32

petitioner would be satisfied if petition is disposed of directing consideration of petitioner's reply.

¶33

In view of above, matter was heard and taken up for disposal.

¶34

Challenging notice dated 11.07.2025 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.

¶35

Sri M.S. Byre Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vijaya Shekara Gowda, advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner along with her son were owners of property bearing Sy.no.74, BBMP Khata no.1039/45/74/1P, measuring 28400 sq.ft., situated at Thindlu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. In said property, petitioner had constructed commercial building and leased it out to Sri Shantha Kumar R. It was submitted, in said premises, Shantha Kumar R was running car washing service station. For said premises, petitioner had obtained power supply from respondents no.1 to 3 with installation bearing RR no.C8CLG7589. It was submitted, tenant of petitioner was paying electricity consumption charges to respondents as per bills raised. Likewise, petitioner had also

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

obtained water supply connection and paying bills as per Annexures-N and N1 respectively.

¶40

Such being case, an Advocate by name Jagadish instigated authorities to take action against petitioner. Therefore, impugned notice was issued to petitioner. Petitioner submitted reply as per Annexure-P on 16.07.2025. It was submitted that petitioner had let-out premises to tenant and in case of violation committed by tenant in running commercial activity either due to non obtaining of license or otherwise, petitioner, who was owner of premises and who had obtained electricity connection for said premises, could not be penalized by disruption of power connection. On said ground sought for quashing of Annexure-A.

¶41

On other hand, Sri Lokesha K., learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5 sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, since power connection stood in petitioner's name, notice was issued to petitioner. It was submitted, based on complaint received by Hon'ble Lokayukta and Karnataka State Police Control Board, a report was called for from BBMP authorities. In pursuance of same, inspection was conducted

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

and it was noted that a car wash facility being in petitioner's premises, without obtaining trade license from BBMP. An intimation was given by BBMP to petitioner. It was submitted, petitioner was also notified about failure to provide effluent treatment plant. On failure to submit reply, notice at AnnexureA was issued, same was in accordance with law and no interference was called for.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record.

¶46

From above petitioner's grievance against notice at Annexure-A is that in case petitioner's tenant had committed any violation, authorities would be required to take action against violator and not against petitioner, who was owner of premises. Petitioner had submitted reply to notice which was not considered. If it is so, it would only be fair that respondents consider petitioner's reply before taking action in pursuance of notice at Annexure-A.

¶47

Perusal of reply submitted by petitioner at Annexure-P would reveal that petitioner in OS no.1066/2025 filed by one Smt.Munirathnamma, an interim order of

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38552 WP No. 26892 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

injunction was granted in respect of petitioner's property and therefore, petitioner was unable to take any action insofar as effluent treatment plant.

¶51

In case there is any suit pending against property in question and order of injunction operating, same cannot be employed by petitioner to perpetuate violation insofar as premises in question as noted by authorities and action initiated by them. Injunction inter parte , cannot come in way of functioning of authorities, unless authorities are injuncted against taking action.

¶52

Under such circumstances, it would be open for respondents to continue taking action until petitioner or his tenant report compliance of usage of premises as per law.

¶53

With above observations, writ petition is disposed of .

¶54

In view of above order, I.A.no.1/2025 stands disposed of

¶55

as unnecessary.

¶56

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶57

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt Latha v. Vs the Executive Engineer (Ele)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Latha v. Vs the Executive Engineer (Ele)

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

Dalalaru Sagathu Fruits and Vegetables Marukatte Prangana Vs the State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Shri.Madivala Veerabasappa @ M.Veerabasappa

Mr. Roshan Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Prestige Tranquillity Apartment Owners Association Ptaoa Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri. Basavaraja Shastry Vs the State of Karnataka

Jnanaganga House Building Co. Operative Society (Regd) Vs Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation (Cesc)