Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1174 (KAR)

Lokesh C v. Managing Director Bescom,bangalore

2020-06-22

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2020
JUDGMENT N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. - This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. The petitioners seek the following reliefs in the writ petition: a. To issue Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 5 authorities to restore the power connection forthwith as it exists before disconnection to the Schedule property vide RR Meters bearing No.1.IHL:20250, 2. IHL:20251, 3.IHL:20252, 4.IHL:34941, 5.IHL:349423, 6.IHL:34943 and 7.AEH:8346 by considering petitioners representation dated:16.3.2020 at Annexure:N and another Representation dated:4.4.2020 at Annexure-R in the interest of justice. b. Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under facts and circumstances of the case for restoration of power to the schedule property in the interest of justice. c. And further pass any such other orders/reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, including the cost of the above proceedings, in the interest of justice. 3. Petitioner No.1 has purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 12.08.2004 (Annexure B), from one Susheelamma. During the year 2013, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 borrowed a loan of Rs.21 lakh from respondent No.6 by pledging the schedule property as the security by creating mortgage deed. During the year January 2018, the petitioners claim to have cleared entire mortgage loan and demanded for redemption of the mortgage deed, but respondent No.6 instead of redeeming the schedule property, he gave application to get transfer the electric meters in his name attached to the schedule property. Further, respondent No.6 along with their henchmen tried to dispossess the petitioners from the schedule property on 18.02.2018, claiming that they have purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 19.08.2013 (Annexure-F). 4. The petitioners lodged a police complaint in C.Mis.No.193/2018 on 19.02.2018 (Annexure-G) against respondent No.6 and his henchmen. On 23.02.2018, the petitioners gave objection to BESCOM requesting not to transfer electric meters in the name of respondent No.6 as per Annexure-J. Meanwhile, on 17.03.2018, the petitioners filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.08.2013 and other reliefs against respondent No.6 and one Sudeep in O.S.No.426/2018 (Annexure-K) before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. On 23.02.2018, the petitioners gave objection to BESCOM requesting not to transfer electric meters in the name of respondent No.6 as per Annexure-J. Meanwhile, on 17.03.2018, the petitioners filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.08.2013 and other reliefs against respondent No.6 and one Sudeep in O.S.No.426/2018 (Annexure-K) before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. Respondent No.6 gave a request to BESCOM for removal of electric meters in the schedule property and that the BESCOM authorities on 12.03.2020, requested the police for their help for removing the said electric meters. 5. On 13.03.2020, respondent No.5 Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, with the protection of Police removed the electric meters attached to the schedule property. 6. On 16.03.2020, the petitioners by filing an application have requested the BESCOM authorities to restore the said electric meters bearing Nos.RR Meters bearing No.1.IHL:20250, 2. IHL:20251, 3.IHL:20252, 4.IHL:34941, 5.IHL:349423, 6.IHL:34943 and 7.AEH:8346 7. Petitioner No.1 lodged a police complaint before Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru Rural district and also made a request to respondent No.5 for restoration of electric meters on 04.04.2020. In this background, the petitioners have approached this court for remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Sri. K.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that basically petitioner No.1 is the owner of the schedule property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2004 (Annexure- B) and that respondent No.6 was a creditor and nothing more. No doubt, as stated above, the petitioners borrowed an amount of Rs.21 lakhs and it was on 19.08.2013 respondent No.6 and one Sudeep got the registered sale deed of the schedule property executing by petitioner No.1 in favour of respondent No.6 by playing fraud and representing the same to the petitioners that it was a mortgage deed being executed as the security for repayment of the debt. 9. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be an official working as Lineman in BESCOM. He further claim that he has got a family consisting of school attending children as well. 9. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be an official working as Lineman in BESCOM. He further claim that he has got a family consisting of school attending children as well. It is also necessary to note that on 17.03.2018, the petitioner No.1 claims that he has filed a suit in O.S.No.426/2018 for setting aside the sale deed dated 19.08.2013 (Annexure-F) which is a fraudulent document and BESCOM authority are stated to have restored the electric meters whether removed the electric meters on 13.03.2020, it is against this, the petitioner No.1 claim that he continued to be the owner of the schedule property and that the petitioners are entitled for quite enjoyment and possession of the same. 10. Sri. H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5 submits that he has filed power for respondent Nos.1 and 5 and he appears for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 also and he is BESCOM panel advocate. He is permitted to file Vakalath for respondent Nos.2, 3, and 4 also. Further, he would submit that he has no personal interest in the matter or bias against petitioners or respondent No.6. He has done the official act of restoring the electricity. 11. Sri. H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 during his submission draws my attention to a letter dated 12.03.2020, stated to have been submitted by petitioners for surrendering the electric meters as he intended for demolition and it was gave on 05.03.2020. But the same is not filed in the case. However, learned counsel submits that non-filing of the said letter is due to service of notice on yesterday i.e., 21.06.2020. He shows it to the video camera and whereby, he states that the meters are required to be removed and electricity be disconnected to facilitate him for the purpose of repair. 12. Respondent No.6 is yet to be served. However, learned counsel for petitioners submits that he does not insist for any relief against respondent No.6. Under the circumstances, following points are clear that the petitioners do not want relief against respondent No.6 and they expect BESCOM authorities to remove the electric meters. 13. Incidentally, meters are removed and transferred at the request of respondent No.6 since who is stated to have purchased the property. Under the circumstances, following points are clear that the petitioners do not want relief against respondent No.6 and they expect BESCOM authorities to remove the electric meters. 13. Incidentally, meters are removed and transferred at the request of respondent No.6 since who is stated to have purchased the property. The registered sale deed is disputed by the petitioners and even he has submitted that the same is fraud and the issue regarding the same is pending before the Civil Court in O.S.No.426/2018. 14. The suit is filed on 17.03.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.6 is yet to place appearance in the suit. It is also necessary to note that the subject matter before the court wherein the very sale deed dated 19.08.2013 executed in favour of respondent No.6 is questioned, is pending. 15. The petitioners do not want any relief against respondent No.6 and the petitioners aver that it is at the instance of respondent No.6, the electric meters are removed. Factual aspects of the matter are before the Civil Court. In the circumstances, the petitioners cannot expect intervention of this Court to another proceeding. The proper course of action would be to agitate the matter before the Civil Court and not through writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition does not survive for consideration and it is dismissed.