1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.2314-15/2017(GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRAKASH PALANI, S/O S. PALANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS 2. SRI. GOPI PALANI, S/O S. PALANI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS PETITIONERS 1 7 2 ARE R/O.NO.37/26, MEANEE AVENUE TANK ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560 042 (BY SRI.RANJITH KUMAR, ADV. FOR BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV) AND:
…PETITIONERS 1. CHIEF ENGINEER BESCOM BENGALURU CORPORATION REGION BENGALURU-01 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(E1), BESCOM, E-8 SUB DIVISION 5TH MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT 2ND BLOCK, BANASWADI BANGALORE-560 043 3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, OPERATIONS, BESCOM, 2ND FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-01 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (e) 1 SUB DIVISION, BWSSB, BANGALORE-43 …RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.06.2016 ISSUED BY R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. Ranjith Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Pruthvi Wodeyar, Adv. for petitioners.
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, Annexure-G passed by the respondent- Chief Principal Manager (Ele), Operations, BESCOM by which the power connection for the petitioners is ordered to be disconnected for the reasons that the petitioners - Sri. Prakash Palani and another had not adopted the precautionary measures for fire extinguishing in terms of the KERC (Electricity Supply) Rules 2004 at the instance of Deputy Director (Fire Control), Karnataka Fire Extinguishing and Emergency Services, Bengaluru vide Annexure-G dated 24.06.2016.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the legal opinion given by the In-house Law Officer of the Respondent- BESCOM, Bengaluru vide page 62 of the paper book that the question of unauthorized construction or deviations from the sanctioned plan is not the concern of the respondent- BESCOM and it is for the concerned local body under the Municipalities Act or Municipal Corporations Act to take suitable action in the matter. Therefore, submitted that contrary to this legal opinion, the power supply of the petitioners could not have been disconnected.
3. A bare perusal of the impugned order Annexure-G dated 24.6.2016 reveals that the reason for disconnection of power supply is different from the issue for which the legal opinion is referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to appear before the concerned authority and satisfy him with the relevant evidence that adequate measures for fire extinguishing and control have been taken for the building concerned for the public safety reasons and without that satisfaction, it was only natural for the concerned BESCOM authorities not to continue the power supply to the petitioners to avoid fire accidents. Therefore, prima-facie no fault can be found with the said communication, Annexure-“G” dated 24.6.2016. It is for the petitioners to go before the concerned authority and satisfy them in this regard.
4. The petitions are found to be devoid of merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
5. Copy be sent to the respondents.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.