M/S Tejas Surya Constructions Properties Vs the Commissioner

M/S TEJAS SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS PROPERTIES BY ITS PROPRIETOR TEJUS R K SON OF R KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS OFFICE AT NO.136 G 1, TEJUS RESIDENCY 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN MUNISWARA LAYOUT KODICHIKKANAHALLI DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, MAIN ROAD BOMMANAHALLI, D MART, BENGALURU 560 076. REPRSENTED BY P A HOLDER SRI RAGHAVAPPA KRISHNAMURTHY SON OF LATE RAGHAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12788 WP No. 1035 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM, K R CIRCLE, BENGLAURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECRICALS), S16, MADIWALA SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KORAMANGALA ELECTRICAL, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BESCOM,

¶20

BENGALURU - 560 034.

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶23

SRI. C CHANNEGOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶25

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE PERMANENT POWER SUPPLY TO THE SCHEDULE BUILDING AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:12788 WP No. 1035 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - BESCOM authorities to regulate the permanent power supply to the site property bearing Old No.9/17, new No.17, then Old No.9, situated at 1^st A main road, Maruthinagar, Madivala, New Extension, BBMP Ward No.152, Bengaluru (for short 'schedule property').

¶33

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

respondents.

¶35

The petitioner claims to have purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2024. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 - BBMP issued license and sanctioned plan for construction of the schedule building consisting of 1 stilt + 1 ground + 3 floors. The respondent - BESCOM also sanctioned power supply to the schedule building.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12788 WP No. 1035 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

After completion of construction, the

¶39

respondent - Authority issued communication stating that the Assistant Director, Town Planning has submitted a representation seeking disconnection of power supply of the schedule property on the ground that petitioner has violated the sanctioned building plan.

¶40

It is brought to the notice of this Court that

¶41

against the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, and Bangalore Development Authority Act, the petitioner has already approached this Court in W.P.No.32010/2024. This Court, by order dated 02.12.2024 has granted an interim order.

¶42

Thus, the dispute as to whether the petitioner has

¶43

put up the construction contrary to the sanctioned plan is already seized of by this Court in W.P.No.32010/2024, wherein an interim order is operating. In such circumstances, respondent - Authority cannot deny

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12788 WP No. 1035 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

electricity supply to the petitioner solely on the basis of alleged violation.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical matters, in the case of NAVEEN KUMAR T VS. BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD¹ ., this Court has directed the respondent - BESCOM to provide electricity connection subject to the final outcome of the pending proceedings relating to building violations. It is therefore, submitted that writ petition may also be disposed of on similar term.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 does not dispute that in similar matters, this Court has directed electricity connection subject to the outcome of the proceedings concerning the alleged building violation.

¶49

Having regard to the submissions made above and the fact that the issue relating to the alleged violation of the sanctioned plan is pending consideration in

¶50

1 W.P.No.26496/2024, D.D.01.10.2024

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:12788 WP No. 1035 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

W.P.No.32010/2024, this Court is of the view that denial

¶55

of electricity supply at this stage would not be justified. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶58

ii) Respondent No.2 - BESCOM is directed to regulate and provide permanent power supply to the schedule property, if otherwise, the petitioner has complied with all requirements in accordance with law.

¶59

iii) The electricity connection so granted shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings which is pending in W.P.No.32010/2024.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶62

PHM

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

M/S Tejas Surya Constructions Properties v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tejas Surya Constructions Properties v. the Commissioner

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

Sri Srinivas Vs Sri Prasanna Kumar

Dr G v Palaksha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

The Deputy Chief Engineer (Works) Vs Papanna

Rudra Kumar Vs S. Balaswamy

Sri. Munivenkatayya Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom)