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

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, VASANTH NAGAR, SUB-DIVISION, NO.3, 3^RD CROSS, BALAPPA GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 051.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

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

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE LETTER DATED 04/07/2025, BEARING NO. SA.KAA.NE. M(V)/E-1/SA.AA.(T)/572 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A. B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BEARING METERS BEARING NO.RR 1EEH 58933 TO 58938 IN RESPECT TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER BY REFIXING THE SAID METERS IN THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:38868 WP No. 29456 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Challenging letter dated 04.07.2025 at Annexure-A issued

¶31

by respondent no.1, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

Sri Bhuvan KP, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was owner of property bearing Door no.15/1, Corporation no.9, located at 7^th Cross, Chinnappa Garden, Bengaluru, measuring 34 ft. 6 inches East to West and 25 ft. 6 inches North to South having purchased it under registered Sale Deed dated 09.04.2008 and Supplementary Deed dated 30.09.2022 as per Annexure - B. It was submitted, he had paid property tax to BBMP and Khata was transferred to his name. Copies of E-khata and tax paid receipts are at Annexures - C and D. It was submitted, after obtaining approved building plan and licence, petitioner had constructed residential building thereon. It was submitted, thereafter petitioner had availed permanent power supply connection from respondents (BESCOM) with meter installation bearing no.RR. 1EEH 58933 to 58938. Such being case, petitioner was issued with impugned letter to show cause against disruption of power

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38868 WP No. 29456 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

supply on ground that BBMP had informed that construction put-up by petitioner was unauthorised and in violation of approved sanction plan. It was submitted, against said letter issued by BBMP authorities, petitioner had preferred appeal before respondent no.3. Pending consideration, disruption of power supply by respondents no.1 and 2 would not be justified. On said grounds sought for allowing writ petition.

¶36

On other hand, Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel, who is directed to accept notice for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 opposed writ petition. It was submitted, mere pendency of appeal before respondent no.3 would not discharge respondents from performing their statutory functions and especially, in view of directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and 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.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38868 WP No. 29456 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused writ

¶40

petition.

¶41

From above it is seen, petitioner’s grievance against letter at Annexure-A issued by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2. Since orders passed under Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Act 2020, ('BBMP Act' for short) are under challenge in appeal before Commissioner, Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike, and same was under consideration, respondents no.1 and 2 would not be justified in taking action against petitioner. If it is so, initiation of action by respondents for disconnection of power supply would not be justified. Therefore, letter at Annexure-A stand discharged reserving liberty to respondent no.4 to take action, if found necessary, after disposal of appeal.

¶42

A direction is issued to respondent no.3 to dispose of appeal within a period of two months from date of receipt certified copy of this order, but keeping in mind directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.21 Barjatya ’s case (supra) and intimate result of appeal to respondent no.2.

¶43