Mr. Hameed Khan vs The Assistant Executive Engineer Bangalore Electricity Supply Limited (BESCOM) and Mr. Abbas Ali Bohara

B.S. Patil, J.—In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Malleswarm, Bangalore, to restore the electricity supply to the shop premises bearing No. 53 situated at 7th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore. Petitioner claims to be the tenant in occupation of the premises with effect from 06.09.2012. According to him, every month he has been paying Rs. 60,000/- as rent to the landlord-the 2nd respondent herein. The premises in question was supplied with temporary electricity connection. However, at the request of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent has disconnected the temporary electricity connection. This made the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent with a representation dated 21.09.2012 requesting for restoration of power supply. This representation is at Annexure-B. As the authorities have not considered this representation and as the electricity supply is disconnected, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction in this regard.

Petitioner has also produced a communication issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer-the 1st respondent herein on 07.11.2013 informing the petitioner that the consumer of the installation had represented not to give temporary power supply to the tenant.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in order to harass the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has given such a representation to the 1st respondent to disconnect the temporary power supply to the shop premises in occupation of the petitioner as tenant. It is his contention that the 1st respondent ought not to have acted on the basis of such representation to disconnect the essential supply thereby pushing the petitioner into serious hardship depriving him of his business and livelihood.

On instructions from the 1st respondent, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent submits that as the 2nd respondent had requested for disconnection of the temporary power supply to the shop premises, they have considered his request and disconnected the power supply.

Though served, the 2nd respondent has remained unrepresented.

Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, I find that the action of the 1st respondent in disconnecting the power supply to the shop premises which is in occupation of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. Only because the land owner requested for disconnection, the 1st respondent cannot unilaterally disconnect the power supply. Disconnection of power supply entails serious consequence, as the occupant of the premises will be deprived of an opportunity to run his business and enjoy the premises. The landlord may resort to such method in order to enforce the tenant or the occupant to vacate the premises. Such methods cannot be encouraged. The Authorities are duty bound to take care before acting on such representations which are apparently ill-conceived and motivated. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to restore the temporary connection after collecting the required charges from the petitioner. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner is permitted to approach the 1st respondent and pay the dues, if any for restoration of temporary connection, whereupon the 1st respondent shall reconnect the temporary electricity supply forthwith.