MOHAN SINGH P v. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 s. 248(3)
Judgment
(BY SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA) HAVING OFFICE AT N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001.
THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER WEST ZONE BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA) HAVING OFFICE AT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37603 WP No. 28589 of 2025 HC-KAR BASHYAM PARK SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISON BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA) BANGLAORE-560 010.
THE BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (A STATE OWNER COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING OFFICE AT K.R.CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY IS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N1-SUB DIVISON, RAJAJINAGAR BESCOM, BANGALORE-560 010. (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. ANUSHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 21.06.2025 BEARING NO.AEE/Sri. Ram/PR/182/25-26 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3-THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37603 WP No. 28589 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER On the ground that the petitioners have put up illegal construction on the property belonging to them, BBMP has initiated action. However, before passing a confirmation order under Section 248(3) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'BBMP Act'), upon the recommendation of BBMP (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition), respondent No.5 has issued a notice (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) to the petitioners to show cause why the electricity should not be disconnected.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the enquiry regarding the illegal construction is yet to be completed and before completion of the enquiry, question of disconnecting the electricity does not arise. On that ground, it is prayed that both the letter of BBMP directing respondent no.5 to disconnect the electricity and the notice issued by respondent no.5 in pursuant to it be set aside. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37603 WP No. 28589 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the BBMP submits that enquiry is yet to be completed and the confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is yet to be passed.
4. Under circumstances, the question of disconnecting electricity before BBMP comes to the conclusion that the building constructed by the petitioners is illegal does not arise. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The impugned communication
Operative part
21.06.2025 issued by respondent no.3 to respondent no.5 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; ii. The impugned notice dated 11.07.2025 issued by respondent no.5 to the petitioners (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners’ property once - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37603 WP No. 28589 of 2025 HC-KAR BBMP concludes after enquiry that the building constructed by the petitioners is illegal; iv. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 — s. 248(3).
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.