The grant of an electricity connection does not confer title or legal possession of a property; disputes regarding possession and encroachment are civil in nature and cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction when a civil remedy is available.

Digitally signed by

MAHALAKSHMI B M

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NO.8, APARANJI BUILDING

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION AGAINST RESPONDENT TO DISCONNECT THE POWER CONNECTION GIVEN TO THE SHED SITUATED AT CORNER WESTERN SIDE ON THE SITE NO.3 FORMED OUT OF SURVEY NO.58 OF CHIKKABETTAHALLI WHICH IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents-Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) authorities to disconnect the electricity connection allegedly granted to a shed situated within the schedule property and for consequential relief including initiation of action against the concerned official.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of site No. 3 formed out of Sy. No. 58 of Chikka Bettahalli Village, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 03.12.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that he has put up a compound wall around the property and a small sheet roof shed on one corner thereof. It is submitted that the third parties namely one Shankar and one Vipin N Prasad allegedly interfered and that a civil suit in OS No. 4711/2022 is pending, wherein an order of temporary injunction has been granted restraining interference with the compound wall.

3. According to the petitioner, despite representations dated 01.03.2024 and 31.08.2024, requesting BESCOM not to grant electricity connection to the shed, the respondent No. 4 has allegedly provided electricity connection in the name of Vipin P. Prasad, which is asserted to be illegal and in violation of law. On these premise, the petitioner seeks for disconnection of electricity supply and disciplinary and criminal action against the concerned BESCOM official.

Contentions of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grant of electricity connection to the shed is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's property rights. It is submitted that the BESCOM authorities ought to have considered the petitioner's representation and the pendency of the civil suit before granting such connection. It is further urged that the action of the respondent No. 4 amounts to abuse of power and interference with the petitioner's possession.

Contention of the respondents

5. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petition is not maintainable as the dispute essentially pertains to the possession and inter se rights between the private party which is already subject matter of a civil suit. It is submitted that the electricity connection does not determine title or possession and the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the competent Civil Court under the relevant Electricity Regulations.

FINDINGS

6. On careful consideration of the pleadings and submission, it is evident that the core dispute between the parties revolve around the possession and alleged interference with the schedule property. The petitioner relies upon the pendency of OS No. 4711/2022, wherein issues relating to possession are directly in issue. The grant or continuation of an electricity connection by itself does not confer tit