M/S Nandi Builders and Developers Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30107 WP No. 3197 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 3197 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/s. NANDI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.96, BCC LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560040 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI K S MURALI, S/O K N SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

[BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H T., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶9

AND:

¶10

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, K R CIRCLE, OPPOSITE CENTURY CLUB, CUBBAN PARK, K.R. CIRCLE, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM SUB-DIVISION NO.2. KHB COLONY, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶14

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK EAST, BENGALURU -560 020, REPT BY ITS COMMISIONER.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

[BY Smt. PADMAVATI S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH); SRI MOHAMMED AKHIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3]

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:30107 WP No. 3197 of 2025

¶19

2 -

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

PETITIONER DATED 20-11-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-V FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO THE PETITIONER'S SCHEDULE PROPERTY. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE LETTER DATED 25-06-2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR SANCTIONING PERMANENT ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO THE PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE- R-2.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶25

a) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.2024 vide Annexure-V for providing permanent electricity connection to the Petitioner's Schedule Property.

¶26

b) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the letter dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Respondent NO.2 for sanctioning permanent electricity connection to the Petitioner's Schedule Property vide Annexure- R2 , etc.

¶27

Sri Vasanth Kumar H.T., learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is absolute owner of property bearing Sy.no.78, measuring 35 guntas situated at Nagarabhavi village, Yeshvanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belonging to late Sri Muniyappa. After his death, property was partitioned and extent of 8407 sq.ft fell to share

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:30107 WP No. 3197 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

of his sons and daughter under partition deed dated 13.12.2006 at Annexure-A. Their names were also entered in revenue records in respect of said land. Children of Muniyappa entered into joint development agreement as per Annexure-D. Under said agreement, petitioner was having 50% undivided share in property. Thereafter building was constructed after obtaining permit/licence from competent authorities. Though acquisition notifications were issued by Bengaluru Development Authority (' BDA ' for short), extent of 35 guntas of land was left out of acquisition and BDA had issued 'No Objection Certificate'. Copy of sketch and endorsement issued by BDA are marked as Annexures - L & M. Thus, construction on petitioner's land was after due compliance.

¶32

It was submitted petitioner had obtained temporary electricity connection from respondents no.1 and 2. Thereafter respondents no.1 and 2 had also passed order dated 25.06.2024 at Annexure-R2 approving sanction for permanent connection. Alleging that at instance of respondent no.3, respondents no.1 and 2 were not taking any action in pursuance of Annexure-R2, this writ petition is filed. It was

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:30107 WP No. 3197 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

submitted, petitioner had submitted representation at

¶37

Annexure-V and sought for direction for consideration.

¶38

Smt.Uttur Padmavati Suresh, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 submitted that though sanction was granted to petitioner as per Annexure-R2, petitioner had not intimated execution as approval was as self-execution. Therefore, petitioner was not justified in alleging omission by respondents to take action. It was further submitted, immediately on receipt of intimation by petitioner about execution of sanction, respondents would inspect installation building and verifying compliance as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v.

¶39

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in (2024)

¶40

SCC OnLine SC 3767, in para no.21, respondents would take further steps. Para no.21 of said decision reads:

¶41

" 21. Therefore, in the larger public interest, we are inclined to issue the following directions, in addition to the directives issued by this Court in Re:Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (supra):

¶42

(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:30107 WP No. 3197 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records.

¶47

(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.

¶48

(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.

¶49

(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder/owner/occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.

¶50

(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building.

¶51

(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30107 WP No. 3197 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge.

¶55

(ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by the owner or builder against the nonissuance of completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

¶56

(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum building of litigation before the Tribunal Courts relating to house constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as per law.

¶57

(xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties concerned.

¶58

(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws."

¶59

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶60

record.

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:30107 WP No. 3197 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

From above, pendency of petitioner's representation

¶65

at Annexure-V with respondents is not in dispute. Though, learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner is required to report compliance, there would be no impediment for respondents to consider same on petitioners reporting compliance.

¶66

In view of above, retaining writ petition would not

¶67

be necessary.

¶68

Writ petition is disposed of . On petitioner reporting compliance not only on specifications in Annexure-R2, but also satisfying compliance with direction in para no.21 of Rajendra Kumar Bhatia 's case (supra), under acknowledgement to respondents, respondents no.1 and 2 to take necessary action within two weeks from said date.

¶69

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶70

PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

M/S Nandi Builders and Developers v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nandi Builders and Developers v. Bangalore 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

K Nagaraj Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

The Maratha Mandal English Medium School, Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathnamma Vs Executive Engineer

Boreas Renewable Energy Private Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Kempaiah

M T Rajakumar @ Rajakumar Vs the Executive Engineer Kptcl