KARNATAKA v. SMT. ANUSHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.5.)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 s. 356
Judgment
1. SRI SRIKANTH REDDY (VISWANATHA REDDY), S/O YARAVA SIDDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3/120, GANGIREDDY PALLE, THUMMALAPALLI PANCHAYATHI, B KODURU MANDALAM, PRABHALAVEEDU, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 228. (BY SMT. PAVITHRA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J C ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35992 WP No. 27645 of 2025 HC-KAR
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560 066.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA RANGE, BENGALURU-560 066.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) 4TH EAST SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.4; SMT. ANUSHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.5.) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2025 IN NO.AEE(ELEC)/ SA.EM(TA)/POO-4/2025-26/2298 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), 4TH EAST SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, WHITEFIELD, HOPE FARM, BENGALURU, I.E., 5TH IS PRODUCED AT RESPONDENT, A COPY OF WHICH THE AND ANNEXURE-H RESPONDENTS ELECTRICITY RR TO RESTORE NO.4ETP31962 FORTHWITH TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, ETC. CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: THROUGH PHYSICAL CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35992 WP No. 27645 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 356 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act').
2. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 253 of the Act and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner would prefer an appeal, but prays for some interim protection as there are no regular sittings of the Appellate Authority and there is a threat of demolition / disconnection of electricity supply. It is specifically contended that the petitioner has not violated the sanction plan / building bye-laws and even if there is any violation, the same can be regularized in accordance with law and the impugned order is passed without application of mind. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35992 WP No. 27645 of 2025 HC-KAR
Operative part
4. Based on the above mentioned submission, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of; ii. The petitioner is granted three weeks' time from today to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority; iii. Respondent-BBMP is directed not precipitate the matter against the petitioner till the Appellate Authority takes a decision in respect of the property of the petitioner, provided the petitioner prefers an appeal within three weeks; iv. The petitioner is prohibited from putting up additional construction on the property; v. Respondent No.5 shall restore power supply to the building of the petitioner subject to payment of all the fee; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35992 WP No. 27645 of 2025 HC-KAR vi. It is hereby made clear that no opinion has been expressed on merits of the case and it is for the Appellate Authority to take appropriate decision in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove; vii. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 — s. 356.
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.