Sri. D. T. Ningaraja Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (v)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO KINDLY ISSUE DIRECTION AND THEREBY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 28.11.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND REPRESENTATION DATED 09.01.2026 AT ANNEXURE-M SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:19107 WP No. 3845 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

W.P.NO.22145/2024 (GM-KEB) DATED 30.08.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-G BY ISSUING WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, CONSEQUENTIALLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE TEMPORARY ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO THE PETITIONER BY ISSUING WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ

¶28

of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to consider the application dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-L) and representation dated 09.01.2026 (Annexure-M) submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No.22145/2024 and consequently, to continue the temporary electricity connection to the schedule premises.

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner claims to be in possession of the

¶31

subject property as a licencee and had been granted

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19107 WP No. 3845 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

temporary electricity connection, which was periodically renewed. The said connection was subsequently interfered with compelling the petitioner to approach this Court in W.P. No.22145/2024. The writ petition came to be disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an application for renewal of temporary power supply and the authority was required to consider the same in view of the conditions of supply keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and

¶35

Another vs U.P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others¹ .

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner submitted application and representation. However, the respondent-authority misinterpreted the earlier order of this Court is insisting upon production of building plan and surrender of existing connection.

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that the petitioner's

¶38

1 (2024) SCC Online SC 3767

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:19107 WP No. 3845 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

application/representation so submitted would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶43

Having regard to the submission made and the grievance of the petitioner being limited to the nonconsideration of his application/representation, his grievance would be redressed if necessary directions are issued. Accordingly, this Court pass the following :

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶46

(ii) The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner's application/representation dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-L) and

¶47

09.01.2026 (Annexure-M) in terms of the direction issued in W.P. No.22145/2024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19107 WP No. 3845 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(iii) Till consideration of the application/ representation, the respondent-authority shall continue the temporary electricity connection to the petitioner's schedule premises.

¶51

(iv) The petitioner shall continue to pay consumption charges.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶54

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Sri. D. T. Ningaraja v. Assistant Executive Engineer (v)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D. T. Ningaraja v. Assistant Executive Engineer (v)

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

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

Sri Kotamreddy Venu Gopal Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Priya Khanna Vs Tree House Apartment Owners Association