Disposed

Sri Kotamreddy Venu Gopal Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/36625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notice for electricity disconnection based on BBMP proceedings that were under interim stay. Court held disconnection unsustainable and disposed of petition, subject to final outcome of related writ.

What did the court decide?

Disconnection of electricity supply held unsustainable; writ petition disposed of subject to final outcome of related writ.

Sri Kotamreddy Venu Gopal Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:18478 WP No. 36625 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.36625 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI KOTAMREDDY VENU GOPAL REDDY S/O SRI CHENCHU REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.26-3-1406 1^ST STREET, OPP. NIPPO, CHANDRAMOLI NAGAR, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH-524004.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. ROCHANA P.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO.236 2^ND FLOOR, VIKASASOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE,

¶17

N.R.SQUARE, BANGALURU-560 002.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER HBR LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, HBR BBMP, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶19

THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18478 WP No. 36625 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORPORATE OFFICE,

¶23

K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER E-9 SUB-DIVISION, NAGAVARA, HBR LAYOUT, BESCOM, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶25

&RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B., AGA FOR R-1; SRI G. NARASI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI THARANGIRI M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-5; SRI VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2025 BEARING NO. OOVI(E9)/SAKAAEM(V)/3475 ISSUED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to

¶32

quash the notice dated 20.11.2025 issued by respondent No.5 (Annexure-C), whereby respondent No.5 directed disconnection of electricity on the ground that the provisional order and confirmation order have been passed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under Sections 248 (1), 248 (2) and 248 (3) of the Bruhat

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:18478 WP No. 36625 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (8BBMP Act9 for short).

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶38

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶39

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the schedule property, having acquired title under a registered sale deed and having put up construction thereon. The petitioner has already obtained electricity and water connection to the said property.

¶40

It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings were initiated by the BBMP under Sections 248 (1), 248 (2) and 248 (3) of the BBMP Act, which culminated in provisional and confirmation orders. The petitioner has challenged the said proceedings in W.P. No.9728/2025, wherein this Court has granted an interim order of stay which is still in force.

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18478 WP No. 36625 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

During the subsistence of the interim order, respondent No.5 issued the impugned notice seeking disconnection of the electricity supply to the petitioner9s premises, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶45

the impugned notice issued by respondent No.5 is wholly unsustainable, as it is founded on proceedings which have already been stayed by this Court in W.P. No.9728/2025 and thus, the action of respondent No.5, being based on the recommendation of respondent No.3, which is itself under challenge and in respect of which, an interim stay has been granted, renders the impugned order liable to be set aside.

¶46

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.5 sought to justify the notice issued, contending that the notice has been issued pursuant to the provisional and confirmation orders passed by respondent No.3.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18478 WP No. 36625 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP

¶50

supports the action, contending that once the provisional and confirmation orders are passed, consequential action, including disconnection of the electricity is justified.

¶51

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶52

contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.

¶53

It is not in dispute that the provisional and confirmation orders have been passed by the BBMP under Sections 248 (1), 248 (2) and 248 (3) of the BBMP Act and are foundation for the impugned notice. It is also not in dispute that the said orders are the subject matters of challenge in W.P. No.9728/2025, wherein this Court has granted an interim order of stay, which is operating in favour of the petitioner. This Court, by order dated 22.04.2025, granted an interim order of stay in W.P. No.9728/2025, which reads as under:

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18478 WP No. 36625 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

<Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as against the order passed under Section 248 (3), appeal came to be preferred in Appeal No.226/2024.

¶57

It is submitted that the appeal was disposed off along with other connected matters in Appeal No.223/2024, 224/2025, 225/2024 and 227/2024. As against the common order passed in the said appeals referred to above, W.P.No.8965/2025 has been filed and interim order has been passed.

¶58

Noted the interim order passed in W.P.No.8965/2025.

¶59

In light of the same, there would be stay of the order at Annexure-Q and M till the next date of hearing.

¶60

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he would make representation for finalization of plan at Annexure-G. If such representation is made to the respondent-BBMP, the same to be considered and orders to be passed expeditiously.

¶61

Re-list the mater in the week commencing from 09.06.2025.

¶62

Learned Counsel Ms.Sinchana M.R. undertakes to file Vakalath for respondent nos.1 and 2.=

¶63

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18478 WP No. 36625 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Once the very proceedings forming the basis for issuance of impugned notice have been stayed, any consequential action flowing therefrom cannot be permitted to be enforced.

¶66

In view of the same, the disconnection of electricity supply to the schedule premises is unsustainable. Electricity being an essential service, and disconnection thereof, when the proceedings initiated by BBMP have been stayed and are pending adjudication in W.P. No.9728/2025, would result in severe and irreparable loss. In light of the same, the restoration of electricity supply to the schedule premises, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, would be subject to the final outcome of the order in W.P. No.9278/2025. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶69

MBM

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri Kotamreddy Venu Gopal Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kotamreddy Venu Gopal Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hemavathi Vs Sri Kantharaja

H K Venkatakrishnamma Vs Srinivasa

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Karbari Vs Sri Madolappa

Sri. Naveen Kumar S R Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms. Priya Khanna Vs Tree House Apartment Owners Association

Sri Ramesh P Vs the State of Karnataka