Anil K M Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16323 WP No. 7676 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7676 OF 2026 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANIL K. M. S/O MANJAYYA K G AGE 31 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR POWERMAN, BESCOM, NELAMANAGALA SUB-DIVISION, R/AT NO, THOREKEMPOHALLI VILLAGE, MADALAKOTE POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK – 562 123.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER INTERNAL AUDIT BESCOM, OPP. KEB CHOWTRY, HORAPETE, TUMKUR – 572 101

¶15

EXECUTIVE ENGINER BESCOM DIVISION, NELAMANAGALA – 562 123

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AT

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:16323 WP No. 7676 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ANNEXURE-F BEARING NO.KA.NO.EO(V)/BE.V.KAM/NE.V/LE/ SALE/2025-26/8176 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2025, AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED FROM THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE SAID ENDORSEMENT.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶26

“(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-F in accordance with law, and consequently quash the order dated 22.09.2025 and further direct the Respondents to refund the amount deducted from the salary of the Petitioner pursuant to the said endorsement.

¶27

(ii) Grant such other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶28

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

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and referred to the material on record in order to point out that the respondents having

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16323 WP No. 7676 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

sanctioned Rs.14,000/- in favour of the petitioner towards medical expenses for undergoing kidney stone operation, the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily proceeded to recover a sum of Rs.13,351/- out of the said amount and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶33

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioners did not produce the original medical bills for scrutiny, the respondents were constrained to withhold the sum of Rs.13,351/-. She would however fairly submits that in the event the petitioner submits a fresh set of duplicate bills, the respondents would verify and scrutinize the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶34

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioner to appear before the concerned respondents on 16.04.2026, on which date the petitioner shall produce original/duplicate/true copies of the bills for

¶35

perusal/scrutiny/verification by the respondents. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional representation to the respondents. Immediately upon the petitioner appearing before the

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:16323 WP No. 7676 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

respondents on 16.04.2026, the respondents shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner and proceed further, in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days thereafter.

¶40

Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions,

¶41

the petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶43

BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Anil K M v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil K M v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

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

Mr B Nagaraja Goud Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Shekar H S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Gopal Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mohamed Safeer S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nataraja N., Vs the Commissioner

Sri Erabhadra K M Vs the State of Karnataka