Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1274 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)
C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 1562 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)
IN WA NO. 1274/2024 BETWEEN
11. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, (WHOLLY OWNED BY THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA), BENGALURU- 560 028, REPTD. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, (ON BEHALF OF MANAGING DIRECTOR).
22. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI), O AND M DIVISION, BESCOM, HARIHAR, DHAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 601.
33. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM LTD., DHAVANAGERE-577 001.
...APPELLANTS (BY SMT. THARANGINI M.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 200.
2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., FIRST FLOOR KAVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 028, RPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. T. KARIBASAPPA, S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
44. LOLAKSHAMMA, W/O P KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
55. T S ANITHA, W/O LATE T K SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
66. ARSHITHA, D/O LATE T K SHIVKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.
77. YASHASVINI, D/O LATE T K SHIVKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
THE RESPONDENT NO.6 & 7 ARE MINORS REP. BY 5TH RESPONDENT WHO IS THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN.
THE RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 7 ARE R/AT EKKEGONDI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DHAVANAGERE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577 601.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R-1;
NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 23.06.2025;
SRI MARUTHI G.B, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & 4;
SRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO 7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE WP No-72/2023(GM-KEB) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No- 72/2023 (GM-KEB) BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, b) TO AWARD THE COST OF THIS APPEAL.
IN WA NO 1562 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. T. S. ANITHA, W/O. LATE T.K. SHIVAKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2. ARSHITHA, D/O. LATE T.K. SHIVAKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.
3. YASHASVINI, D/O. LATE T.K. SHIVAKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
APPELLANT NOS. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY FIRST APPELLANT WHO IS THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN.
ALL ARE R/O EKKEGONDI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST. -577 601.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 020.
2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KAVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 028.
3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (WHOLLY OWNED BY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA), BENGALURU-560 028, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI), O AND M DIVISION, BESCOM, HARIHAR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM LTD, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
6. T. KARIBASAPPA, S/O. LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
7. LOLAKSHAMMA, W/O. T. KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
R/O EKKEGONDI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST.- 577 601.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R-1 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 72/2023 (GM-KEB) BY GRANTING INTEREST AND COST AS PRAYED IN THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, C M JOSHI J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
1. For the reasons stated in the affidavits accompanying the applications, IA No.1/2024 in WA No.1274/2024 and IA No.2/2025 in W.A.No.1562/2024 are allowed. Delay of 178 and 241 days in filing both the appeals is condoned.
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.72/2023 (GM-KEB), respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the writ petition [the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and two others] have approached this Court in W.A.No. 1274/2024 seeking to set aside the impugned order and the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 [T.S. Anitha and two others] have approached this Court in Writ Appeal No.1562/2024 seeking to modify the same, under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
3. The writ petitioners, are the wife and children of deceased T.K.Shivakumar, who died on 13.07.2014 due to electrocution on account of an overhead LT Power Lines snapping and falling on his back while he was cutting the grass in the land bearing Sy.No.56/7, measuring 5.08 guntas situated at Byaladahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Harihar Taluk. The petitioners came to know about the incident since the deceased did not return to his home and therefore, his relatives went in search of him to his field. A case was registered by the Harihara Rural P.S. in Crime No.144/2014 for offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. The criminal trial before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), and JMFC Harihara, Davanagere, on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the police ended in an acquittal of the officials of the appellants herein. The writ petitioners sought compensation from the appellants/ respondent Nos. 3 to 5 since they did not respond, they filed the writ petition in Writ Petition No.55489/2016, which came to be disposed of with a direction to appellants/ respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to consider the legal notice issued by the writ petitioners.
4. Despite such directions, the appellants/ respondent Nos. 3 to 5 rejected the notice and directed the writ petitioners to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, the writ petitioners once again, approached this Court in Writ Petition No.72/2023 and by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants/ respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to pay compensation of `19,66,600/- to the writ petitioners and the parents of the deceased (respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the writ petition) which is challenged in these appeals.
5. The learned counsel appearing for appellants /respondent Nos. 3 to 5 submits that the Criminal Court, which tried the officials of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC has ruled that the negligence has not been proved and therefore, the writ Court could not have come to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the appellants in maintaining the electrical lines. Secondly, she contends that the actions in tort and negligence was to be established by the writ petitioners, which being a factual aspect, the writ Court could not have exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is canvassed that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appellants/ respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to pay the compensation to the writ petitioners.
6. In this regard, she places reliance on the judgments in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board V. Sumathi and others, 2000(4) SCC 543 Chairman Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO) and others V. Smt. Sukamani Das and another, 1999 AIR SCW 3383 and N. Adhinarayana Reddy V. KPTCL and others, WA No.5886/2001 DD 29.10.2001
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contend that when the negligence to maintain the electrical lines in good condition, has been established by the report of the Electrical Inspector, there was no need for the petitioners to approach a Civil Court to establish such fact. The Criminal Court can only consider the negligence fo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
