IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV W.P. Nos.3021-3022/2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI. K. C. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O CHIKKEGOWDA PROPRIETOR "HOTEL SRI KRISHNA"
B.M. ROAD, HASSAN 573201.
2. SMT. DEVEEREAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O SRI. K.C. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA HAVING ADDRESS AS "HOTEL SRI KRISHNA"
B.M. ROAD, HASSAN 573201. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. VIKRAM SIMHA, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POWER GOERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HASSAN 573201.
3. THE ASST. EXECUIVE ENGINEER (E) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD CITY SUB DIVISION (HASSAN) SANTHEPETE, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN 573201. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R.1 Sri. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R.2 AND Sri. S.G.PRASHANTH MURTHY for Sri. SRIRANGA.S, ADV. FOR R.3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-‘A’ AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. M. A. Subramani, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1.
Sri. A. Ravishankar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. He is permitted to file Vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2.
Sri. S.G. Prashanth Murthy for Sri. S. Sriranga, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. The present petitions are filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 12.01.2019, made by the petitioners to the second respondent. The petitioners state that the order passed by the second respondent under Section 187 (9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for brevity) was challenged before this court in W.P.Nos. 1683-1684/2019 which came to be disposed of on 11.01.2019, relegating the petitioners to avail alternate remedy available under Section 322 of the Act. In light of the order impugned in the aforesaid writ petitions, it appears that the City Municipal Corporation, Hassan had addressed a communication to the Assistant Executive Engineer, CESCOM, Hassan on 10.01.2019 delivered on 14.01.2019, which provided that in view of the safety concerns, as demolition work was being carried out, it would be appropriate that electricity supply to all the buildings was required to be withdrawn.
3. The learned counsel for petitioners points out that the as long as the protection as envisaged in the order dated 11.01.2019, or any such interim measure before the authorities to be approached by the petitioners, is in existence, the question of terminating the electricity supply would not arise.
4. However, taking note of the fact that the request by City Municipal Corporation, Hassan is for withdrawal of electricity supply with respect to all structures on the same road, the respondent No.3 is directed to take appropriate steps for ensuring power connection to the petitioners’ building be restored without compromising the ‘safety concerns’ taking note of other aspects relating to the nature of demolition work that is contemplated and being carried on by the City Municipal Corporation authorities. If for the purpose of safety and other precautions in the light of the demolition work, respondent No.3 deems it necessary to make separate arrangement for supply of power to the petitioners, the third respondent is at liberty to do so.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the third respondent to ensure that power supply is restored to the petitioners in accordance with the observations made above.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE