Karnataka High Court
WP/50605/2019 of R. VEENA REDDY Vs OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (FIRE) on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010485572019 NC: 2026:KHC:51804 WP No. 50605 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.50605 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: R.VEENA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.50605 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
R.VEENA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O NAVEEN REDDY T V
AT NO.8, ICON BUILDING
III STAGE, 80 FEET ROAD
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560038
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SAMPATH A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE (FIRE)
KARNATAKA STATE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES
NO.1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560042
2.
BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
(WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
C, O AND M SUB-DIVISION - E6
Verified
HC-KAR
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560038
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YOSHODA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO
RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY TO THE SAID BUILDING; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the electricity supply to the building owned by the petitioner and consequently to quash the impugned notice dated 09.08.2019.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the communication at Annexure-E is only an intimation issued to the petitioner calling upon him to comply with the requisite conditions stipulated in the
Verified
HC-KAR
Notification, failing which the electricity supply would be disconnected.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, despite his best efforts, he has been unable to establish contact with the petitioner and that no instructions have been received from the petitioner subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the view that, in the absence of instructions regarding the subsequent developments, including as to whether any coercive steps have been taken by the respondents and whether the petitioner has complied with the objections/conditions raised by the concerned authorities, the writ petition cannot be kept pending indefinitely.
5. The communication at Annexure-E was issued calling upon the petitioner to comply with the Notification dated 07.07.2011. The records, including the objection statement, indicate that the electricity supply was, in fact,
Verified
HC-KAR
disconnected on 04.11.2019. However, in the absence of any specific instructions from the petitioner as to whether the conditions stipulated in the said Notification have been complied with, no further adjudication can be undertaken in the present proceedings.
6. Accordingly, if the petitioner has complied with the conditions stipulated in the Notification dated 07.07.2011, it is open for him to approach the concerned authorities seeking restoration of the electricity supply, if the same has not already been restored. The concerned authorities shall consider such representation in accordance with law and take appropriate action.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
Verified