SMT J SARALA DEVI v. COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. MANU N.P, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARAJA RAO K. S.,ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

#1. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANYS ACT REGISTERED OFFICE AT K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 001 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

#2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA 562 159. (BY SRI.H.V. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32801 WP No. 21822 of 2024 NOTICE THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NO. SA.KA.NI.IM(V)/RA.NA.U.V/SA.IM.(THA)/2023-24/2265-66 DATED 18.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-A OR IN ALTERNATIVE TO CONSIDER THE REPLY DATED 09.02.2024 THE ANNX-B GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE R-2 AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. BEARING THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

#2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband by name late K. Jayachandra Prasad was running the Petrol Pump right from 1972 having dealership with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (‘HP Company’ for short) and after the death of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner obtained renewal of the dealership agreement with HP Company and she is running the petroleum business.

#3. It appears that there was a partition suit instituted by one of the sisters of late K. Jayachandra - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32801 WP No. 21822 of 2024 Prasad, which came to be decreed and the petitioner’s husband challenged the preliminary decree in RFA No.34/2021 and drawing up of a final decree has been stayed.

#4. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish trade licence, failing which, the electricity connection would be disconnected. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.2 without considering the reply and without holding enquiry, is making an attempt to disconnect the electricity supply.

#5. Without adverting to the merits and demerits about the civil rights of the parties, in light of the facts narrated above, the petitioner is running the business as renewal of dealership agreement and electricity/consumption charges are paid in respect of the schedule premises.

#6. It is settled proposition of law that providing electricity is one of the fundamental rights for existence - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32801 WP No. 21822 of 2024 and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to the petitioner complying with the other requirements and the electricity being a basic amenities of which a person cannot be declined, moreover on a complaint given by a third party.

#7. In view of the above, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take any coercive action of disconnecting the electricity supply given to the petition premises, subject to the payment of regular consumption charges. The petitioner is at liberty to furnish the additional documents in support of her reply dated 09.02.2024 and the same to be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. AN/- Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE