IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.28995/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
Mrs. AYESHA BEGUM W/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.33, RAMSANDRA, BENGALURU SOUTH TLAUK, BENGALURLU-560090 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI, ADV.) AND:
1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BES COM, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001 2 . THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BESCOM, NO.53, BESCOM WEST CIRCLE, NEXT TO CHORD ROAD HOSPITAL, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079 3 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) BESCOM, KENGERI 4TH SUB DIVISION, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, NO.146, MARUATHI ARCHAD, RR EXTENSION, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560056 4 . SRI CHETAN KUMAR JUNIOR ENGINEER BESCOM, KENGERI 4TH SUB DIVISION, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, NO.146, MARUATHI ARCHAD, RR EXTENSION, NAGADEVANAHALLI BENGALURU-560056 5 . Ms. NASREEN TAJ W/O SYED GAFFER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.31/16, 12TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BAENGLAURU-560040 6. SYED GAFFER S/O A.S.MOHAMOOD, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS No.1125, NEAR SADIQ MOSQUE CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU-560090.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 31.07.2019.) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PADMA S. UTTUR, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI K.MANJUNATH & SRI M.P.VISWANATH, ADVS. FOR R-5 – ABSENT;
SRI CHETAN B., & SRI PUTTURAJ T.V., ADVS. FOR R-6 – ABSENT.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO R-4 RESTORE THE POWER SUPPLY TO THE METER BEARING No.K4D 4329 AND DECLARE THE ACT OF EFFECTING DISCONNECTION OF POWER SUPPLY TO THE METER BEARING No.K4D 4329 AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND ULTRA – VIRUS AND UNJUSTIFIABLE BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-F, G & H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“i. Direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to restore the power supply to the meter bearing No.K4D 4329 and declare the act of effecting disconnection of power supply to the meter bearing No.K4D 4329 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra-virus and unjustifiable by considering the representations produced vide Annexure- F, G and H;
ii. Direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 for false information and award comensation to the petitioner as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and iii. Pass any other order/s as it deems fit in the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.”
2. The petitioner contends that she is a tenant in possession of the premises No.65, consisting of single bed room situated at Udaya Layout, Manganahalli, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 being wife of Syed Gaffer – respondent No.6, due to their strained matrimonial relationship in order to evict the petitioner from the said premises, the respondent No.5 has requested the official respondents to disconnect the power supply to the premises in question by surrendering the meter. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite repeated requests, no power supply is restored by the official respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Prabhugouda B. Tumbigi, for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.5 cannot resort to dubious methods to vacate the petitioner from the premises in question by getting the electricity connection disconnected by the official respondents. It was submitted that the respondent No.4 has furnished the report on 13.06.2019 submitting that the building in question has been demolished and hence, recommended for disconnection of the power supply.
4. However, the building is still in existence and the photographs are furnished to establish the same. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the order of Cognate Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. Rekha Shetty V/s. The Managing Director, KPTCL and Others in W.P.No.45499/2015 [D.D. 15.03.2016].
5. Learned counsel Smt.Padma S. Uttur appearing for the official respondents would submit that based on the request made by the respondent No.5 to disconnect the power supply to the premises in question surrendering the Meter R.R.No.K4D 4329, the official respondents have disconnected the power supply. The petitioner has furnished the incoherent document at Annexure-D. On the subsequent inspection made by the respondent No.4, it was reported that the building in question is in existence and the same is reflected in the report at Annexure-D. However, in view of the decision taken by the consumer to demolish the building in question, it is recommended for disconnection of power supply to the said building.
6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 and 6.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as aforesaid.
8. Merely because there is a marital dispute between the respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioner herein cannot be made as a scapegoat. The respondent No.5 cannot abuse the process of law and request the official respondents to disconnect the power supply in order to evict the petitioner – tenant. It is well settled that the respondent No.5 – landlord if interested in getting the petitioner evicted from the said premises, recourse has to be taken in accordance with law.
9. The report of the respondent No.4 dated 13.06.2019 is inconsistent. At the first instance, it is reported that the building in question has been demolished and the subsequent report depicts that no such demolition of the building is made but it is only an intention of the consumer to demolish the building. Much emphasis is placed by the learned counsel for the official respondents on this document to contend that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. This document now placed by the learned counsel for the official respondents before the Court would lend little assistance to them. The conduct of the respondent No.4 giving inconsistent reports on the same day is highly deprecated.
10. The statutory authorities having responsibilities should act in accordance with law. They being the field officers, have to give the true reports. The report cannot be twisted to favour any person. The truth is invincible. Disconnection of power supply based on the report of the respondent No.4 is wholly unjustifiable. It is mandatory for the statutory authorities to verify the request made by the consumer, considering the real factual position. The basic amenities like electricity cannot be disconnected merely on the tactics adopted by the landlord to vacate the tenant from the premises in question. This view is also fortified by the Cognate Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Mrs. Rekha Shetty supra.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to restore the electricity connection to the premises in question forthwith subject to the payment of the electricity charges regularly by the petitioner as long as she is in possession of the premises in question.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.