✦ Karnataka High Court

M/S. TOOL TECH v. Court of Karnataka

Writ Petition No. 16862 of 2024SENIOR CIVIL3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Judgment

M/S. TOOL TECH (SHEET METAL FABRICATION-SSI UNIT, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN), REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. K.N.SHESHADRI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SON OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, C-102, DYAVASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEXT TO "PHEONIX MARKET CITY MALL", MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 048. (BY SRI. NAUMAN SHARIFF., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

1.

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, (CORPORATE OFFICE), K.R.CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, MALURU-563 130.

3.

M/S. BHASKAR HOTEL AND RESTAURANT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. B.V.BHASKAR, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52269 WP No. 16862 of 2024 S/O VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.8, G.NO. 10TH STREET, 3RD CROSS, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560 008. (BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. V.LAKSHMAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Nauman Shariff., counsel on behalf of Sri.C.Shankar Reddy., for the petitioner and Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person.

2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ of certiorari, order or writ of like nature quashing notice dated 30.05.2024 in No.¸ÀASÉå: JEE/JE(vÁ)/ªÀiÁ/PÀ-28/2023-24/492-96 issued by the second respondent addressed to the petitioner in respect of Plot No.176-P3 of Narasapura Industrial Area, Kolar District vide Annexure-U. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52269 WP No. 16862 of 2024 (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, order or writ of like nature directing the second respondent to consider the reply dated 03.06.2024 issued by the petitioner vide Annexure-V before taking any further steps in this behalf in respect of Plot No.176-P3 of Narasapura Industrial Area, Kolar District. (c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, order or writ of like nature directing the second respondent to wait for the final outcome of the suit in O.S.No.488/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar filed by the third respondent herein vide Annexure-W in respect of Plot No.176-P3 of Narasapura Industrial Area, Kolar District and not to take any further steps for disconnection of power supply till then.

3. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

4.

It is contended that the KIADB has allotted an Industrial Plot to the petitioner and the third respondent. The third respondent raised a complaint before the BESCOM Authorities alleging the petitioner has installed a transformer in its land. Based on the complaint, the BESCOM Authorities communicated to the petitioner to shift the transformer without noticing the fact that a civil dispute in O.S.No.488/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52269 WP No. 16862 of 2024 Kolar between the petitioner and the third respondent was pending. Moreover, an opportunity is not accorded to the petitioner. Hence, the action on the part of the BESCOM Authorities for shifting the transformer is untenable. Hence, this Court deems it proper to set-aside the communication issued by the BESCOM Authorities.

5.

The Writ of Certiorari ordered. The communication

30.05.2024 No.¸ÀASÉå: JEE/JE(vÁ)/ªÀiÁ/PÀ-28/2023-24/492-96 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-U is quashed.

Operative part

6.

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 16862 of 2024). ← Search more judgments