WP/13808/2026 of SRI B G SUJAY Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 9 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “Wherefore, the petitioner in the above case pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to;

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ of like nature and quash the notice dated 27.05.2026, bearing NO.BEVIKAM/SAKAE/S-3/SE(THAM)/2025- 26/1283 issued by the 5th respondent vide Annexure-D to the writ petition and;

HC-KAR

b. Grant any other remedy that this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after obtaining permission, the petitioner has constructed the building and BESCOM has provided the power connection. BBMP has issued a provisional order dated 12.08.2024, a confirmation order dated 03.09.2024, and another notice dated 16.05.2025. The petitioner, aggrieved by the provisional and confirmation orders, preferred W.P.No.10105/2026, which was disposed of, directing the respondents not to precipitate the matter for a period of 8 weeks or till an appropriate decision is taken by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in APP No. 63/2026, which is pending consideration. In the meantime, the respondent/BPMP has communicated to BESCOM, and BESCOM has disconnected the power supply. The petitioners are before this Court questioning the said high-handed action on the part of the respondents when the petitioner's appeal itself is pending.

HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the BBMP has no authority to issue a letter and that BESCOM has no authority to disconnect the power supply when the appeal of the petitioner is pending consideration before the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in G.N Venkateshwaralu Vs. State of Karnataka and another1. He relied on para No. 11, which reads as follows:

“11. In view of admitted pendency of appeal filed by petitioner against order of confirmation, and as issuance of Annexure-H is only at instance of BBMP, it would be appropriate to keep Annexure-H in abeyance until conclusion of proceedings in Appeal No.64/2025 filed by petitioner before respondent no.2 and thereafter, in case of any further intimation by respondent no.2, respondents no.3 and 4 may proceed with Annexure-H. It is further clarified that, until then, respondents no.3 and 4 are directed not to disrupt power supply on grounds mentioned at Annexure-H.

In meanwhile, petitioner is

1 WP No.10810/2025 dated 19.08.2025

HC-KAR

reserved liberty to file objections to Annexure- H.”

4. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits that whenever a confirmation order is passed at that point of time they will issue a communication to BESCOM, and based on that, BESCOM will take the steps. It is submitted that they are acting in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP further submits that, as per the interim orders passed by this Court, they have restored the power supply to the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. When the BBMP, a local authority has initiated proceedings on any of the grounds available to them an order is passed, if that order had attained finality, they want to execute the order, at that point of time, if they are seeking the assistance of BESCOM, the Court can understand the purpose to be achieved by giving such a communication to BESCOM. But unfortunately, when the party has a remedy of appeal, immediately communicating it to BESCOM and BESCOM disconnecting the power supply is

HC-KAR

nothing but creating unnecessary litigation and making the parties rush to the High Court. Every day this Court is coming across several writ petitions of this nature, where it is submitted that their appeal is pending or that a notice has been issued and no final order is passed. The pendency of statutory appeals cannot be reduced to an empty formality by taking coercive steps. What is directly under challenge cannot be indirectly enforced through disconnection of essential service. This is unnecessarily consuming judicial time. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

ORDER

i. The Chief Commissioner of the Greater Bangalore Governance Authority shall look into this aspect and shall take appropriate steps with regard to this aspect and also the coordination between BESCOM and the GBA. The Chief Commissioner shall send the action taken report to the Registrar (General). By October 14th, the Registrar (General) in turn shall place it before this Court.

HC-KAR

ii. As the power supply has already been restored, no further orders need to be passed.

iii. Accordingly, the repetition is disposed of.

iv. Communicate a copy of this order to the Registrar (General).

v. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 *MR