Karnataka High Court
Sri G Anand Kumar Bhandari vs The Asst Executive Engineer on 31 January, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 1846 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 1846 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI G.ANAND KUMAR BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. SRI.B.BHANDARI,
R/A FLAT NO.302, PALACE HEIGHTS APARTMENTS,
NO.19, PALACE CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU-560020.
2. SMT. KIRTI ANAND BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O. G. ANAND KUMAR BHANDARI,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.302,
PALACE HEIGHTS APARTMENTS,
NO.19, PALACE CROSS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 020.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SARAVANA S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by GAYATHRI N
1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Location: High
Court of
WATER SUPPLY AND SANITARY
Karnataka
SUB-DIVISION (BWSSB),
THULASI GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560027.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BESCOM, ANANDRAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560009.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BBMP, VASANTHANAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
3RD CROSS, BALLAPA GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560 001
-2-
WP No. 1846 of 2023
4. JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN MUNCIPAL (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002.
5. MANAGING DIRECTOR
BESCOM, ANANDRAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4;
SMT.SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R5;)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT
THE ACTION OF THE BBMP AUTHORITIES IN ISSUING THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.12.2022, VIDE NO. JAM.NI
(NA.YO-OO)/PR/66/2022-23, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, AT
ANNEXURE-D, IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIONS OF
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Saravana.S., for petitioners, learned counsel Sri.Pawan Kumar for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and learned counsel Smt.Swamini Ganesh Mohanambal for respondent Nos.2 and 5. Perused the writ petition papers.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are before this Court challenging -3- WP No. 1846 of 2023 Annexure-D, letter addressed by the fourth respondent to the second respondent directing second respondent to disconnect the power supply to the property bearing No.21, Yamunabai Road, Madhavanagar, Bengaluru. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners were before this Court in W.P.No.22577/2021 challenging the provisional and confirmation order passed under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 1976 Act) dated 15.01.2021 and 06.02.2021 respectively. Learned counsel inviting the attention of this Court to Annexure-C, order dated 20.10.2022 submits that this Court set aside both the provisional and confirmation order passed under Section 321 of the 1976 Act and directed the respondents-BBMP to take action against the petitioners and the third respondent within 8 weeks in accordance with law. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-BBMP ought to have initiated action under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 2020 Act) and after passing confirmation order, it is open -4- WP No. 1846 of 2023 for the respondents to give effect to Annexure-D. Since no confirmation order is passed under Section 248 of 2020 Act, learned counsel would submit that the action of the respondents in issuing Annexure-D, letter dated 17.12.2022 is unreasonable.
3. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Pawan Kumar would submit that the respondent-BBMP has already initiated action under Section 248 of 2020 Act against the petitioners as well as neighbours as directed by this Court and he would submit that the confirmation order would be passed considering the objections of the petitioners as well as neighbours of the petitioners.
4. As evidenced by order dated 20.10.2022 in W.P.No.22577/2021 (Annexure-C), the petitioners were before this Court challenging the provisional and confirmation order dated 15.01.2021 and 06.02.2021 and this Court quashed those orders and directed the respondent-BBMP to take action against the petitioners and the third respondent in the said writ petition. As -5- WP No. 1846 of 2023 submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent- BBMP, the respondent-BBMP has initiated action under Section 248 of 2020 Act. Unless the respondent-BBMP passes confirmation order and passes order under Section 356 of 2020 Act, the respondent-BBMP could not have addressed letter dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure-D) requesting the second respondent to disconnect the power supply to the property of the petitioner i.e., No.21, Yamunabai Road, Madhavanagar, Bengaluru. Without passing confirmation order and without passing demolition order as required, requesting second respondent to disconnect the power supply would be unreasonable and arbitrary. It would be appropriate for respondents to give effect to Annexure-D, letter dated 17.12.2022 on taking the proceedings against the petitioners as well as respondent No.3 in W.P.No.22577/2021, initiated under Section 248 of 2020 Act to its logical conclusion.
With the above, writ petition stands disposed of. -6- WP No. 1846 of 2023 Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 5 granted two weeks time to file memo of appearance.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26