w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



K.L. Sowbhagya & Another v/s Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co. Ltd., Tumkur & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- F & G SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900DL2012PTC239188

    Writ Petition No. 17937 of 2021 (GM-KEB)

    Decided On, 15 November 2021

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

    For the Petitioners: A. Sampath, Advocate. For the Respondents: H.V. Devaraju, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to Re-Connect the supply to the Schedule properties immediately and etc.)

1. In this petition, petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to implement and give effect to the electricity sanction orders at Annexures - J and K dated 23.07.2020, whereby, 1st respondent - BESCOM have sanctioned the power supply to the installation in favour of the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that it is the grievance of the petitioners that despite the respondents issuing the aforesaid electricity installation sanction orders at Annexures - J and K dated 23.07.2020, the concerned respondents are not taking any steps to service the installation on the ground that the petitioners have not submitted the general licence obtained from the CMC, Madhugiri, as required in Condition No.2(b) of the aforesaid sanction order.

(i) In this context, it is submitted that a combined reading of Regulation 4.02(1)(ii)(b) with the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'the said Act of 1964') and aforesaid condition No.2(b) to Annexures- J and K will indicate that production of the said sanctioned building plan issued by the CMC was not mandatory and respondents were not entitled to refuse servicing of the petitioners' installation on the ground that the sanctioned building plan has not been produced by the petitioners.

(ii) Secondly, it is contended that the petitioners having submitted an application for issuance of the sanction plan from the CMC, who did not pass any orders on the same within the stipulated period of one month as provided under Section 187(5) of the said Act of 1964, the petitioners have approached this Court in W.P.No.29011/2019; vide order dated 16.10.2019, this Court has granted interim order in favour of the petitioners by holding that the CMC, Madhugiri, is to proceed on the assumption that the sanction plan has been approved.

(iii) It is therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents - BESCOM are not justified in refusing to service the installation already sanctioned in favour of the petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - BESCOM, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, submit that condition No.2(b) of the Conditions stipulated in Annexures - J and K dated 23.07.2020 read with Regulation 4.02(1)(ii)(b) clearly indicates that unless the petitioners produce the General Licence obtained from the CMC, Madhugiri, the respondents are not liable to service the installation in favour of the petitioners. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a perusal of Regulation 4.02(1)(ii)(b) will indicate that the same contemplates issuance of General Licence from the local authority, only if such licence is provided for. In this context, whilst it is not in dispute that the City Municipal Council is a local authority constituted under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, there is no provision under the said Act of 1964, which provides for issuance of General Licence in favour of the petitioners for the purpose of obtaining electricity installation or getting it serviced as required under Regulation 4.02(1)(ii)(b). It is also relevant to state that the conditions appended to Annexures - J and K provide that the petitioner has to produce the necessary licence issued by the competent authority as required under the statute.

7. As stated supra, so long as the Karnataka Municipalities Act does not provide for issuance of General Licence in favour of the petitioners for the purpose of obtaining electricity installation or getting it serviced, the respondents were clearly not justified in refusing to service the installation already sanctioned in favour of the petitioners; consequently, the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted.

8. Even otherwise, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in W.P.No.29011/2019 filed by the petitioners seeking deemed sanction in respect of the building plan submitted by the petitioners to the CMC, Madhugiri, relating to schedule property, this Court vide interim order dated 16.10.2019 has passed an order of stay and directed the CMC to proceed on the assumption that the sanction plan has been approved; under these circumstances, in view of the stay order passed by this Court, I do not find any impediment in directing the respondents - BESCOM to service the installation of the petitioners, subject to the condition that the said servicing of the installation would be subject to the final outcome of the said writ petition in W.P.No.29011/2019, pending before this Court.

9. In the result, I pass the following:-

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The respondents - BESCOM are directed to take necessary steps to service the electricity instal

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

lation of the petitioners in pursuance of Annexures - J and K dated 23.07.2020 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) However, it is made clear that the said servicing of the installation of the petitioners in pursuance of Annexures - J and K dated 23.07.2020, would be subject to the final outcome of W.P.No.29011/2019 pending before this Court. (iv) It is further made clear that any observations and findings recorded in this order would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in W.P.No.29011/2019 pending before this Court.
O R