IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.54197/2017 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
SRI S.NANDAKUMAR S/O LATE M.SEETHARAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.979, 9TH MAIN, AYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, PRAKASHNAGARA, BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KESHAVAMURTHY H.B., ADV.) AND:
1 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER BESCOM, KAVERI BHAVANA, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
2 . THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BESCOM, KAVERI BHAVANA, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
3 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, RAMAMURTHY NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 064.
4 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, DOORAVANI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 065. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.C.SHANMUKHA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO REMOVE OR SHIFT THE HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER FROM THE SITE OF THE PETITIONER BEARING SITE No.23, PRESENT BBMP KHATHA No.170, SITUATED AT RAMAMURTHYNAGARA, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, MEASURING EAST TO WEST ON NORTHERN SIDE 50.5 FEET, NORTH TO SOUTH ON EASTERN SIDE 16.5 FEET ON THE WESTERN SIDE 19.5 FEET TOTALLY MEASURING 913.5 SQ.FT. AS ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 15.11.2017 submitted by him, is before this Court.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the property in question namely, site No.23, earlier NAC Khata No.170, present BBMP Khata No.170 totally measuring 913 square feet. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent – Authorities have installed 5 Voltage Transformer which is having heavy voltage Iron Pole at the Northern corner of the petitioner’s site despite the objections raised by the local people. Accordingly, representation was submitted to shift the high voltage transformer but in vain. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Transformer has already been shifted from the place in question and the writ petition does not survive for consideration but the same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the pole is still existing and the same requires to be removed or shifted.
5. In the circumstances, this Court deems it proper to direct the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.11.2017 and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner in any event within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order for shifting the pole from the property in question. Ordered accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.