Sri Prathap S Vs State of Karnataka

SRI PRATHAP .S S/O SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NOS.31 AND 32, MUNISWARA NAGARA LAYOUT, HAALUKUNTE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. PAVITHRA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶16

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

¶17

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BENGLAURU SOUTH CORPORATION, ZONE-2, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), S-13 SUB-DIVISION,

¶20

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRO VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶23

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22287 WP No. 10661 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 16.03.2026 IN NO.SA.KA.EM(VI)/SA.EM(THAM)/S-13/2526/4750 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO FORTHWITH RESTORE THE POWER SUPPLY TO RR NO.S13TPS6776.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the notice dated 16.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3 and to restore electricity supply to the petition schedule premises.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Suresh .R Vs. State of Karnataka and others¹ (Suresh .R), wherein in similar circumstances, this Court permitted

¶31

the petitioners therein to file their objections to the

¶32

1 W.P. No.8047/2026 & con. Matters D.D. 11.03.2023

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:22287 WP No. 10661 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

impugned notice and directed the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶37

It is further submitted that the petitioner

¶38

herein, being similarly placed, is therefore entitled for the same relief.

¶39

Having regard to the submissions made and in

¶40

view of the fact that the petitioner is similarly placed to that of the petitioners in the case of Suresh .R , this Court is of the opinion that the present petition can be disposed of in similar terms. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶43

ii. The petitioner is at liberty to file objections to the impugned notice dated 16.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22287 WP No. 10661 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

iii. The impugned notice shall be treated as a showcause notice and the competent authority shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner along with the material placed on record and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶47

iv. Till consideration of the objections and passing of appropriate orders, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps, including disconnection of electricity supply to the petitioner’s schedule premises.

¶48

v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶51

MBM

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Sri Prathap S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prathap S v. State of Karnataka

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. Suhas Ramachandra Gowda Vs M/S Classmate Properties Partnership Firm

Sri Iliyaz Pasha Vs Sri Hasain Pasha

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jayamma K

Venkatesha Vs the State of Karnataka

The Head Master, Vs the Commissoner for Transport

Smt. Byramma Vs the Commissioner