The Managing Director v. Sri. S N Rajesh

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2026WA/1796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: BESCOM; Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi (GVP); Micro Feeder Franchisee (MFF); franchise agreement cancellation; writ maintainability; public law vs private law remedy; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961; intra-court writ appeal; contract dated 20.12.2021; termination order 01.12.2022; show cause notice 12.09.2022; Single Judge judgment 12.06.2024 in WP No.6978/2024 set aside; alternative remedy under agreement; electricity bill collection franchisee; Kolar / Bangarpet.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.6978/2024 is set aside, with liberty left to the respondent to pursue the remedy under the agreement or any other remedy available under the law. ¶¶45

The Managing Director Vs Sri. S N Rajesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, engaged as a franchisee (Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi / Micro Feeder Franchisee) and not an employee of BESCOM, could invoke the public law remedy of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against cancellation of his engagement. +1 more

¶¶43

Court's answer

The respondent-petitioner was not in the employment of BESCOM; his status was only that of a franchisee collecting electricity charges from consumers and retaining a percentage of collections, with engagement governed entirely by the contract.

¶¶40

Ratio / Principle

Since the engagement was as a franchisee and the dispute lies in the realm of private law, the writ jurisdiction could not have been invoked by the respondent; the Public Law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not available to him.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and is set aside because the respondent-petitioner was not entitled to invoke the Public Law remedy of writ jurisdiction.ratio¶¶44
If the respondent considers that his engagement as franchisee was terminated contrary to the terms of the contract, he may invoke the remedy provided under the agreement itself or any other remedy available under the law.ratio¶¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (S-DIS), High Court of Karnataka — Intra-court appeal by BESCOM officers against Single Judge's judgment dated 12.06.2024 in WP No.6978/2024 concerning cancellation of the respondent's engagement as Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi / Micro Feeder Franchisee under contract dated 20.12.2021 (cancelled vide order dated 01.12.2022 after unsatisfactory work and unanswered final show cause notice dated 12.09.2022). Held: the respondent was not in BESCOM's employment; he was only a franchisee governed by contract, so the dispute lay in private law and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not available to him. The Single Judge's judgment was set aside as unsustainable; appeal allowed, with liberty to the respondent to invoke the remedy under the agreement or any other remedy available in law. Filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32771-DB WA No. 1796 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1796 OF 2024 (S-DIS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. (REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER )

¶10

CHIEF ENGINEER (EL), BENGALURU RURAL AREA ZONE, NO.1-4, IT 5^TH FLOOR, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL TOWN RAJAJINAGAR, BESCOM BENGALURU - 560 044.

¶11

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (EL), O AND M CIRCLE, M.B. ROAD, BESCOM, OPPOSITE YAMAHA SHOWROOM

¶13

KOLAR - 563 101.

¶14

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL), O AND M DIVISION, CHAMPION REEFS, BESCOM, K G F - 563 117.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:32771-DB WA No. 1796 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL), O AND M SUB DIVISION, BESCOM, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHESHA KARTHIK M. REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI. S.N. RAJESH, S/O S.K. NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2923, THIMMARAYASWAMY NILAYA, VIVAKANADANAGAR, BANGARPET TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER:12.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6978/2024 AND UPHELD THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT OF THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:32771-DB WA No. 1796 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶33

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the writ Court in WP.No.6978/2024 filed by the respondent against cancellation of his engagement by the appellant-BESCOM as Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi (GVP) vide order dated 01.12.2022.

¶34

2. The respondent-petitioner was engaged as Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi in terms of the contract dated 20.12.2021. The respondent-petitioner is also called Micro Feeder Franchisee (MFF). The engagement of the respondent-petitioner as Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi was initially for a period of one year. The contract of engagement inter alia provides under clause 7 cancellation of the agreement. Clause 7.1 authorizes the BESCOM that if the petitioner had violated any clause of the agreement or it is found that his execution of work is not satisfactory, the agreement may be cancelled by the BESCOM at any

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32771-DB WA No. 1796 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

point of time even within period of one year. The petitioner-respondent has continued as Micro Feeder Franchise/Grama Vidhuyuth Prathinidhi up to 01.12.2022 i.e., less than a year. As the respondent-petitioner work

¶38

and conduct was not found satisfactory. He was issued several show cause notices and the final Show Cause notice was issued on 12.09.2022. The respondentpetitioner had filed response to the said show cause notice. However, after considering the response, the franchise agreement came to be cancelled.

¶39

3. It is relevant to mention here that the

¶40

respondent-petitioner was not in employment of the appellant-BESCOM, it was only a franchisee to collect the electricity charges from the consumers and out of the collection made by him he would get a certain percentage as franchisee. The terms and conditions of engagement were governed by the contract entered into between the appellant-BESCOM and him, and there was no question of instituting an enquiry as held by the Learned Single Judge

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32771-DB WA No. 1796 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

inasmuch as the respondent-petitioner was not in employment of the BESCOM. The engagement of the respondent-petitioner with the appellant company was as a franchisee and even the writ jurisdiction could not have been invoked by the respondent-petitioner, as the dispute is only in the relation of private law. The Public Law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be available to the petitioner.

¶44

4. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and therefore, the same is set aside as the respondent-petitioner was not entitled to invoke the Public Law remedy of writ jurisdiction.

¶45

Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow this appeal. However, if the respondent-petitioner is of the view that his engagement as the franchisee has been terminated against the terms of the contract, he may invoke the remedy as provided under the agreement itself,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:32771-DB WA No. 1796 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

by raising the dispute or any other remedy as may be

¶50

available under the law.

¶51

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶52