Allowed¶52

Sri Khadarhussain Goususab Mulla v. City Munciapal Council Mundaragi

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/107653/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electricity disconnection notice by HESCOM on requisition of Municipal Council held contrary to law; demand for fresh NOC failing disconnection of power supply to shopping complex; alleged unauthorised construction/deviation from sanctioned plan to be dealt with by Municipal Council itself through notice and appropriate order, with HESCOM assistance only thereafter if demolition required; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India; Writ Petition (LB-UC) No.107653 of 2024, Mundaragi/Mundargi, District Gadag; Annexure-A notice set aside, petition allowed, I.As. closed.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 09.12.2024 issued by respondent No.3 bearing No.Sanke: Mun/SaKaNiEn/(Vee)/Sala/6892-93 (Annexure-A) is set aside; the writ petition is allowed; all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed. ¶52

Sri Khadarhussain Goususab Mulla Vs City… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 09.12.2024 issued by respondent No.3/HESCOM (Annexure-A) requiring the petitioner to obtain a fresh NOC from respondent No.1, failing which electricity power supply to his building/shopping complex would be disconnected, is sustainable in law. +2 more

¶32

Court's answer

The impugned notice issued by the HESCOM on the requisition of the Town Municipal Council (requiring a fresh NOC failing disconnection of power supply) is contrary to law.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Where a person, after taking permission, has made any construction contrary to the sanctioned plan, the Town Municipal Council is bound to take action in accordance with law.

¶47

Key takeaways

The course available to the Town Municipal Council is to issue notice to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order, and only thereafter, if demolition of the property were intended, could it have obtained the assistance of the HESCOM, if required.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ORAL ORDER (single Judge, Lalitha Kanneganti, J.), High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, 11.02.2026, Writ Petition (LB-UC) No.107653 of 2024: A Mundaragi businessman, whose building/shopping complex was constructed under a Town Municipal Council licence dated 16.03.2021 (renewed for 16.03.2022 to 15.03.2023) and who held an electricity supply connection, challenged (i) HESCOM's notice dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure-A) requiring him to obtain a fresh NOC from the City Municipal Council, Mundaragi, failing which power supply to the complex would be disconnected, and (ii) the Council's antecedent letter dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure-B) seeking such disconnection on the footing of alleged unauthorised construction. Held: if construction made after taking permission deviates from the sanctioned plan, the Municipal Council is bound to take action in accordance with law; the course available to it is to issue notice and pass an appropriate order, and only thereafter, if demolition were intended, to seek the assistance of HESCOM if required. A disconnection notice issued by HESCOM on the Council's mere requisition is contrary to law. The Annexure-A notice was set aside; the writ petition was allowed and all pending I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2097 WP No. 107653 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.107653 OF 2024 (LB-UC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KHADARHUSSAIN GOUSUSAB MULLA, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.22, HADAGALI ROAD, MUNDARAGI, TQ. MUNDARGI, DISTRICT. GADAG-582118.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR NARAYANKAR Date: 2026.02.18 10:45:08 +0530

¶14

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUNDARAGI BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, MUNDARAGI, DISTRICT. GADAG-582118.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HUBLI ROAD, GADAG-582101.

¶16

THE HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M SUB DIVISION, HESCOM, MUNDARGI-582118, DISTRICT. GADAG.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2097 WP No. 107653 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) THE HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, O AND M DIVISION, GADAG, DISTRICT. GADAG-582101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SOMANATH TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ANY ORDER OR ANY DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO.SANKE; MUN/SAKANIEN/(VEE)/SALA/6892-93 DATED 09-12-2024, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, INFORMING ABOUT TO OBTAIN FRESH NOC FROM RESPONDENT NO.1 FAILING WHICH DISCONNECT THE ELECTRICITY POWER SUPPLY TO PETITIONER BUILDING/SHOPPING COMPLEX, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 2) ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ANY ORDER OR ANY DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUNDARGI, BEARING NO.NUM/PUSAMUN/TANTRIKA VIBHAGA/2024-25 DATED 2611-2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3) ANY OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO PROTECT THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BY THE ACTION OF RESPONDENT NO.1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2097 WP No. 107653 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶31

prayers:

¶32

“i) Issue any appropriate writ or any order or any direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Notice issued by the respondent No.3 bearing No. Sanke: Mun/SaKaNiEn/ (Vee)/Sala/6892-93 dated 09.12.2024, at Annexure-A, informing about to obtain fresh NOC from respondent No.1, failing which disconnect the Electricity Power Supply to petitioner building/shopping complex in the interest of justice.

¶33

ii) Issue any appropriate writ or any order or any direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing letter issued by the respondent No.1/City Municipal Council, Mundargi bearing No. Num/PuSaMun/Tantrika Vibhaga/2024-25 dated 26-11-2024 produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition, in the interest of justice.

¶34

iii) Any other relief as this Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice to protect the peaceful possession and enjoyment of commercial complex, by the action of respondent No.1, in the interest of justice.”

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner that he had constructed a building in his property by obtaining necessary building license from Town Municipal Council, Mundargi. It is

¶36

his case that he had obtained the license on 16.03.2021 for construction of cellar, ground plus two. The said license was

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2097 WP No. 107653 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

renewed for the period from 16.03.2022 to 15.03.2023. The petitioner had applied for the electricity supply connection to the said building and the same was granted. Respondent No.1-Town Municipal Council had written a letter to respondent No.3/HESCOM dated 26.11.2024 to disconnect the electricity power supply to the petitioner’s building. The petitioner came to know about the said information, after respondent No.3 issued notice dated 09.12.2024 to the petitioner, which was served on 12.12.2024.

¶40

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the

¶41

respondent/Town Municipal Council cannot issue a letter to the HESCOM to disconnect the power supply. It is submitted that the construction is made after obtaining the necessary permission from the Town Municipal Council.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/HESCOM submits that they have issued a notice to the petitioner, however, he has come before this Court questioning the said notice. He submits that the petitioner should have given a representation to the HESCOM seeking his redressal.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2097 WP No. 107653 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶46

respondent/Municipal Council submits that the petitioner has made an unauthorized construction and they have already issued notice to the petitioner, but he has not appeared before the Authorities, instead, he has come before this Court and obtained stay, as such, they are not able to take any further action.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. If a person, after taking the permission, has made any construction contrary to the sanctioned plan, the respondent/Town Municipal Council is bound to take action in accordance with law. The course available to the Town Municipal Council is to issue notice to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order; based on that, if they want to demolish the property of the petitioner, they could have obtained the assistance from the HESCOM, if required. However, the impugned notice issued by the HESCOM on the requisition by the Town Municipal Council is contrary to law. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2097 WP No. 107653 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) Notice dated 09.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 bearing No.Sanke: Mun/SaKaNiEn/(Vee)/Sala/6892-93, to the petitioner, vide Annexure-A is set-aside.

¶53

ii) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶54

iii) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶55

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶56

JTR CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri Khadarhussain Goususab Mulla v. City Munciapal Council Mundaragi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Khadarhussain Goususab Mulla v. City Munciapal Council Mundaragi

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

Legal Manager, Vs Mohammad Yakub

Ensure Developers Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Malatesh Gudda Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Janakibai W/O Parashuram Palkar, Vs Smt Jijabai Claim to Be W/O Parashuram Palkar

Jeevan S/O. Nagaraj Mattihalli Vs Nagaraj Alias Nagaraj S/O Basappa Ningavvanavar

Shri Rajashekhar S/O Bashetteppa Davaleshwar Vs Channayya S/O Kallayya Pujar