Dismissed¶78

Sri B S Suresh, v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026WA/199/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ appeal dismissed; intra-court appeal; S.4 Karnataka High Court Act; BBMP; BESCOM; BWSSB; additional/unauthorised construction; violation of interim order dated 01.09.2025; conditional restoration of electricity; CCTV monitoring of construction site; restraint on occupation; restraint on electricity and water connections; W.P.No.123/2026; W.P.No.26450/2025; W.P.No.26540/2025; order dated 07.07.2025 of Assistant Executive Engineer; Bengaluru; LB-BMP; no costs discussed; no precedent relied upon.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ appeal is dismissed; parties may agitate their rights before the learned Single Judge in the pending W.P.No.123/2026, and pending interim applications, if any, stand rejected as not surviving for consideration. ¶78

Sri B S Suresh, Vs the Chief Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations made in paragraph 2 of the impugned interim order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.123/2026 require interference by this Division Bench. +1 more

¶70

Court's answer

The matter being sub judice before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.123/2026, the observations made in paragraph 2 of the impugned interim order dated 14.01.2026 do not require interference by the Division Bench.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot take the plea that construction put up by him after 01.09.2025 till the final order dated 26.11.2025 in W.P.No.26450/2025 cannot be questioned merely because the express restraint appears in the final order; if he has put up any additional construction in violation of the interim order dated 01.09.2025, the consequences would follow.

¶70

Key takeaways

There is no occasion for the petitioner to file this writ appeal, and the writ appeal is dismissed.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT APPEAL UNDER S.4, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT — DISMISSED. Division Bench (judgment per D K Singh, J.; G Basavaraja, J.) dismissed an intra-court appeal against the interim order dated 14.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.123/2026, a second writ petition by the appellant concerning construction at his Bellandur property. Electricity to the building had been restored under the interim order dated 01.09.2025 in W.P.No.26540/2025 on the condition of no additional construction, and the final order dated 26.11.2025 in W.P.No.26450/2025 permitted an appeal while continuing the restraint on further construction until disposal of the appeal. Held: (i) the Single Judge's directions in W.P.No.123/2026 — inspection of the property, installation of a CCTV camera at the petitioner's cost with 90-day recording, report by 28.01.2026, restraint on occupation, and restraint on BESCOM/BWSSB from granting new electricity or water connections — did not require interference, the matter being sub judice before the Single Judge; (ii) the petitioner cannot plead that construction raised after 01.09.2025 and till 26.11.2025 is beyond challenge because the express restraint figures in the final order — violation of the interim order dated 01.09.2025 attracts its consequences. Parties left free to agitate their rights before the learned Single Judge; pending interim applications rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6925-DB WA No. 199 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI B S SURESH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SHAMANNA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.454, 4TH CROSS, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU 560 103

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J C ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, DODDANEKKUNDI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU 560 037

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:6925-DB WA No. 199 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, DODDANEKKUNDI SUB-DIVISION, EAST MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BENGALURU 560 037

¶23

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) S-7, ASWATH NAGAR, MARATHHALLI, BESCOM, BENGALURU-560037

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN WP NO.123/2026 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2026 THEREIN, THE WRIT PETITION BE DISPOSED OF PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT TO PUT UP FURTHER CONSTRUCTION AS SOUGHT FOR, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER/JUDGMENT.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:6925-DB WA No. 199 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

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

¶35

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶36

impugning the interim order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.123/2026 filed by the appellant/petitioner. This is a second writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same subject matter.

¶37

Before filing the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.26540/2025 praying therein that the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Doddanekundi Sub-Division, Bengaluru, be set aside and the electricity connection be restored to the petitioner's building.

¶38

The learned Single Judge, vide interim order dated

¶39

01.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.26540/2025, had directed the respondent-authority to restore the electricity to the building of the petitioner with a rider that the petitioner

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6925-DB WA No. 199 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

should not put up any additional construction on the property. The electricity to the building of the petitioner was restored in compliance of the said interim order dated 01.09.2025.

¶43

Thereafter, W.P.No.26450/2025 was taken up for final hearing and vide order dated 26.11.2025, the learned Single Judge, in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, had observed as

¶44

under:-

¶45

"7. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has now stated that he would file an appeal, it is appropriate to permit the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appropriate Authority. At the same time, It is also appropriate to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to restore the electricity supply to the building constructed by the petitioner, subject however to the condition that the petitioner shall not put up any further construction of whatsoever nature until the appeal before the Appellate Authority is disposed off.

¶46

8. It is made clear that if the petitioner puts up any further construction of whatsoever nature, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to approach

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:6925-DB WA No. 199 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

this Court seeking orders to stop such construction or seal the building of the petitioner."

¶51

Thus, the interim order dated 01.09.2025 was in

¶52

operation when the final order dated 26.11.2025 came to be passed in the aforesaid W.P.No.26450/2025. While permitting the petitioner to file an appeal against the order dated 07.07.2025, the learned Single Judge had directed

¶53

that the petitioner shall not put up any additional construction till the appeal filed by him would get decided.

¶54

The petitioner has now filed the second writ petition

¶55

in W.P.No.123/2026 (LB-BMP) in which the following interim directions have been issued at paragraph Nos.2 to 4:-

¶56

"2. The submission of the impleading applicant is that the petitioner is still going on with the construction. Respondent No.3 is directed to cause the inspection of the property and to ensure that no further construction takes place. Respondent No.3 is also directed to get a CCTV camera installed at the construction site at the cost of the petitioner with a recording facility for 90 days, so that any

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:6925-DB WA No. 199 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

construction activity including plastering or the like is captured in the said CCTV, and also to ascertain, if there is any further violation being made by the petitioner of the order dated 01.09.2025 in WP No.26450/2025.

¶61

3. The report of the 2^nd respondent to be filed by 28.01.2026 with a sample video recording made. It is made clear that if any further construction has taken place, necessary action would have to be taken against the official respondents.

¶62

4. The petitioner is restrained from occupying the premises or causing occupation of the premises by anyone. The jurisdictional BESCOM and BWSSB are restrained from granting any electricity or water connection to the said property, other than the temporary connection already provided."

¶63

To test the bona fides of the petitioner, the learned

¶64

Single Judge, in W.P.No.123/2026, has observed that it has to be seen whether the petitioner has put up any additional construction in violation of the interim order dated 01.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.26450/2025 inasmuch as the electricity connection to the building of the

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:6925-DB WA No. 199 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

petitioner was restored on the condition that he should not

¶69

put up any additional construction.

¶70

The matter is sub judice before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.123/2026 and we do not think that the observations made in paragraph 2 of the impugned interim order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge requires an interference. The petitioner cannot take the plea that though electricity was restored subject to the condition that he would not put up any additional construction, but in the final order, he has been restrained from putting up the additional construction and therefore, any construction put up by him after 01.09.2025 till the final order dated 26.11.2025 in W.P.No.26450/2025, cannot be questioned. If he has put up any additional construction in violation of the interim order dated 01.09.2025, the consequences would follow.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:6925-DB WA No. 199 of 2026

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

We are, therefore, of the considered view that there

¶75

is no occasion for the petitioner to file this writ appeal, which is why we dismiss the same.

¶76

Parties may agitate their rights before the learned

¶77

Single Judge in the pending W.P.No.123/2026.

¶78

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interim applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and accordingly they stand rejected.

¶79

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶80

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶81

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Interim order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.123/2026 (the second writ petition on the same subject matter), issuing directions including inspection of the property, installation of a CCTV camera at the petitioner's cost, a report by 28.01.2026, restraint on occupation of the premises, and restraint on BESCOM/BWSSB from granting new electricity or water connections; challenged in this intra-court appeal.¶36
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 14.01.2026
Prior proceeding
Petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.26540/2025 seeking to set aside the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Doddanekundi Sub-Division, and restoration of the electricity connection to his building.¶37
Prior proceeding
By interim order dated 01.09.2025 in W.P.No.26540/2025, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent-authority to restore electricity to the petitioner's building with a rider that the petitioner should not put up any additional construction on the property.¶39
Prior proceeding
Electricity to the petitioner's building was restored in compliance with the interim order dated 01.09.2025.¶42
Prior proceeding
Final order dated 26.11.2025 in W.P.No.26450/2025: the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appropriate Authority against the order dated 07.07.2025 and directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 to restore electricity supply subject to the condition of no further construction of whatsoever nature until disposal of the appeal, with liberty to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to seek stopping of construction or sealing of the building upon any violation.¶43
Prior proceeding
In the final order dated 26.11.2025, restoration of electricity supply was made subject to the express condition that the petitioner shall not put up any further construction until the appeal before the Appellate Authority is disposed of.¶45
Prior proceeding
Petitioner then filed the second writ petition, W.P.No.123/2026 (LB-BMP), in which the learned Single Judge issued interim directions at paragraph Nos.2 to 4, including inspection of the property by Respondent No.3 to ensure no further construction and installation of a CCTV camera at the construction site at the petitioner's cost with 90-day recording.¶56
Prior proceeding
Interim directions in W.P.No.123/2026 further restrained the petitioner from occupying the premises and restrained the jurisdictional BESCOM and BWSSB from granting any electricity or water connection to the property other than the temporary connection already provided.¶62

Sri B S Suresh, v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B S Suresh, v. the Chief Commissioner

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

Gopal M Vs the District Commissioner

Smt M G Vanajakshi Vs Mrs Vasanthi

Ompl Officers Association Vs Union of India