Sri Robert Kennady Vs the State of Karnataka

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SMT. ANUSHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER BEARING NO.BEM. JA. MAM /SA.KAA. NI.A (UPA) -1/KI.A (RAA.NA)/ 1885/2025-26 DATED 17-09-2025

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42539 WP No. 31853 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT BEARING NO. KRA.SAM.SA.KAA EM (VI)/ SA. EM (TAM) /EN-1/2024-25/109799 DATED 22-09-2025 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND J AND ETC.,

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned letter bearing No. ¨ÉA.d.ªÀÄA/¸À.PÁ.¤.C[G¥À]-1/Q.C.(gÁ.£À)1885/2025-26 dated

¶37

17.09.2025 issued by respondent No.6 and the letter bearing No.¸À.PÁ.EA(«)/¸À.EA(vÁA)J£ï-1/2024-25/1079-99

¶38

dated 22.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.5, by which the electricity and water connection was sought to be disconnected.

¶39

The petitioners contend that they, being the absolute owner of the property bearing No.236, PID No.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42539 WP No. 31853 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

15-20-11 situated in Block No. 2, Rajajinagara, Bengaluru560010 had constructed a building after obtaining a plan and licence. Respondent No. 4, alleging violation of the building plan and license, had passed a provisional and a confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, 'the BBMP Act'). The petitioners challenged the said order before the Chief Commissioner. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.5 and 6 had issued the impugned letters threatening to disconnect the electricity and water connection to the premises on the ground, that the construction put up by the petitioners is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The petitioners are therefore aggrieved by the said letters and have filed this petition.

¶43

The solitary contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appeal against the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, is pending consideration before the Chief Commissioner and therefore until the appeal is disposed

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42539 WP No. 31853 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

of, respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot take law into their hands and disconnect the electricity and water supply to the building. He therefore prays that the impugned letters be set at naught until the appeal before the chief commissioner is disposed of.

¶47

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal against an order passed by respondent No.4 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, which is pending consideration.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned

¶49

letters issued by respondents No.4, 5 and 6, cannot be given effect to until the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Chief Commissioner is disposed of. In that view

¶50

of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.5 and 6 not to give effect to the letters bearing No. ¨ÉA.d.ªÀÄA/¸À.PÁ.¤.C[G¥À]-1/Q.C.(gÁ.£À)1885/2025-26

¶51

dated 17.09.2025 issued by respondent No.6 and the letter bearing No.¸À.PÁ.EA(«)/¸À.EA(vÁA)J£ï-1/2024-25/1079-

¶52