WP/13398/2026 of SRI ARUN KUMAR Vs CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED on 11 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari Quashing the endorsement dated:17/01/2025 at Annexure-A issued by Respondent No.3 in bearing No.SA.Ka.Ni.Im(V)/ Sa.Im (Tham) ku.na/U.V/2025-26/1858.

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to to Immediately restore electricity supply to the Petitioners with respect to RR Numbers i.e., 3SP 202696(RR Number of Petitioner No.1), 93662 (RR Number of Petitioner No.2), 93663(RR Number of Petitioner No.3), 20700, 202697(RR Number of Petitioner No.4), KSC 17479 (RR Number of Petitioner No.5), 93664 (RR Number of Petitioner No.6) 202692(RR Number of Petitioner No.7) 202699 (RR Number of Petitioner No.8), 202698 (RR Number of Petitioner No.9), KSC 13959(RR Number of Petitioner No.10) and 202694 (RR Number of Petitioner No.11) or alternatively provide independent electricity connection to the Petitioners without insisting on landlord's NOC.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners are lawful tenants occupying the shop premises under respondent No.4 for the past 20 to 30 years, carrying on business for their livelihood. Due to disputes between the parties, several eviction

HC-KAR

suits have been filed and are pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.4, with an oblique motive to evict the petitioners by coercion, disconnected the electricity supply to the shops owned by the petitioners, who are tenants under respondent No.4. In this regard, the petitioners submitted a representation to respondent No.3, seeking restoration of the electricity supply, by letter dated 31.12.2025. Respondent No.3 instructed the petitioners to produce records pertaining to the power supply and to furnish documents relating to the suits pending before the court. Accordingly, the petitioners produced the documents. Meanwhile, on 03.01.2026, respondent No.4 submitted a representation to respondent No.3 requesting the permanent disconnection of the power supply, and the same was disconnected. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations seeking restoration of the power supply. However, there was no response from respondent Nos.1 and 2. On 17.01.2026, respondent No.3 issued an endorsement stating that the restoration of electricity supply is not possible

HC-KAR

without the landlord's consent and hence the petitioners are before this court.

3. This Court on 17.06.2026 recording the reasons, that when a dispute is pending between the landlord and the tenant, the authorities cannot disconnect the power supply at the landlord's behest, even after the tenant brings the pending litigation to their notice, directed respondent No.3 to forthwith restore the power supply. This court directed the petitioners shall continue to pay the regular consumption charges. Notice has been served on respondent No.4, and no vakalath has been filed on their behalf.

4. When the matter came up on the last occasion, the petitioner brought to the court's notice that the power supply had not been restored. On 09.09.2026, this court directed that the power supply be restored forthwith. On 10.09.2026, it was again submitted that the power supply had not been restored. The court then ordered that if the power supply was not restored to the petitioner by the end of the day, the Managing Director of respondent No.1 shall be present before the court on 11.09.2026. Today, when the matter came up before the

HC-KAR

court, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the power supply had been restored. It is further submitted that the owner had locked the premises where the meter is situated, and as such, the power supply could not be restored as per the order passed by the court. It is submitted that the concerned officer is also present before the court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power supply has been restored, the writ petition must be allowed because the endorsement, i.e., issued by respondent No.3, is arbitrary.

6. Though notice is served on the respondent No.4, there is no representation on their behalf.

7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Admittedly, when the disputes are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4, and when the respondent is notified that civil suits are pending between the parties at the behest of the owner, the power supply is disconnected. CESCOM cannot act in this manner, and the landlord is using CESCOM to ensure that the tenant vacates

HC-KAR

the premises even before the civil suits are disposed of. The respondent/authorities have no business to interfere in these kinds of matters where civil suits are pending adjudication before the competent court.

8. In that view of the matter as far as the second relief is concerned already it is worked out and as far as the first relief is concerned, this court is passing the following:

ORDER

i. The endorsement dated 17.01.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 is set aside. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is Allowed. The parties are at liberty to settle their disputes before the competent forum. iii. Pending IAs., in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

TS,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 AK