Karnataka High Court
WA/1796/2024 of THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs SRI. S N RAJESH on 1 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:32771-DB WA No. 1796 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1796 OF 2024 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, K.R.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1796 OF 2024 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
(REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER )
2.
CHIEF ENGINEER (EL),
BENGALURU RURAL AREA ZONE,
NO.1-4, IT 5TH FLOOR,
RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL TOWN
RAJAJINAGAR, BESCOM
BENGALURU - 560 044.
3.
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (EL),
O AND M CIRCLE,
M.B. ROAD, BESCOM,
OPPOSITE YAMAHA SHOWROOM
KOLAR - 563 101.
4.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL),
O AND M DIVISION,
CHAMPION REEFS,
BESCOM, K G F - 563 117.
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
5.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL),
O AND M SUB DIVISION, BESCOM,
BANGARPET,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHESHA KARTHIK M. REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. S.N. RAJESH,
S/O S.K. NARAYANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2923,
THIMMARAYASWAMY NILAYA,
VIVAKANADANAGAR,
BANGARPET TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K.C., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS
AND
SET-ASIDE
THE
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.
JUDGEMENT
AND ORDER:12.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6978/2024 AND UPHELD THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT OF THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the writ Court in WP.No.6978/2024 filed by the respondent against cancellation of his engagement by the appellant-BESCOM as Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi (GVP) vide order dated 01.12.2022.
2. The respondent-petitioner was engaged as Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi in terms of the contract dated 20.12.2021. The respondent-petitioner is also called Micro Feeder Franchisee (MFF). The engagement of the respondent-petitioner as Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidhi was initially for a period of one year. The contract of engagement inter alia provides under clause 7 cancellation of the agreement. Clause 7.1 authorizes the BESCOM that if the petitioner had violated any clause of the agreement or it is found that his execution of work is not satisfactory, the agreement may be cancelled by the BESCOM at any
HC-KAR
point of time even within period of one year. The petitioner-respondent has continued as Micro Feeder Franchise/Grama Vidhuyuth Prathinidhi up to 01.12.2022 i.e., less than a year. As the respondent-petitioner work and conduct was not found satisfactory. He was issued several show cause notices and the final Show Cause notice was issued on 12.09.2022. The respondent- petitioner had filed response to the said show cause notice. However, after considering the response, the franchise agreement came to be cancelled.
3. It is relevant to mention here that the respondent-petitioner was not in employment of the appellant-BESCOM, it was only a franchisee to collect the electricity charges from the consumers and out of the collection made by him he would get a certain percentage as franchisee. The terms and conditions of engagement were governed by the contract entered into between the appellant-BESCOM and him, and there was no question of instituting an enquiry as held by the Learned Single Judge
HC-KAR
inasmuch as the respondent-petitioner was not in employment of the BESCOM. The engagement of the respondent-petitioner with the appellant company was as a franchisee and even the writ jurisdiction could not have been invoked by the respondent-petitioner, as the dispute is only in the relation of private law. The Public Law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be available to the petitioner.
4. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and therefore, the same is set aside as the respondent-petitioner was not entitled to invoke the Public Law remedy of writ jurisdiction. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow this appeal. However, if the respondent-petitioner is of the view that his engagement as the franchisee has been terminated against the terms of the contract, he may invoke the remedy as provided under the agreement itself,
HC-KAR
by raising the dispute or any other remedy as may be available under the law.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 ct-vn