Shriram Suhaana Apartments Owners Association v. Mr. Naveen Nagendra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 979 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 495 OF 2024

IN WA No. 979/2024 BETWEEN:

¶1SHRIRAM SUHAANA APARTMENTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION SHRIRAM SUHAANA DODDABALLAPUR ROAD YELAHANKA BANGALORE - 560 064 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT PRESIDENT MR. SUNIL DESAI …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1MR. NAVEEN NAGENDRA UNIT NO.J - 1004 11TH AND 12TH FLOORS, BLOCK C SHRIRAM SUHAANA RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX DODDABALLAPURA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 064 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka NC:(2026:KHC:6034-DB( WA(No.(979(of(2024( C/W(CCC(No.(495(of(2024( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

¶2ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENERGY DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA NDROOM NO. 236, 2 FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶3BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶4GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NDROOM NO. 436, 2 FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS

(SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE BY KING & PARTRIDGE, ADVOCATES FOR R-1 SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 4 SMT. SWAMINI G. MOHANAMBAL,CGC FOR R-3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.4253/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION No.4253/2023 AND PASS ANY SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

NC:(2026:KHC:6034-DB( WA(No.(979(of(2024( C/W(CCC(No.(495(of(2024( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN CCC NO. 495/2024 BETWEEN:

¶1NAVEEN NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT UNIT NO J - 1004 TH TH11 AND 12 FLOORS, BLOCK C SHRIRAM SUHAANA RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX DODDABALLAPUR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 064 ...COMPLAINANT (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE BY KING & PARTRIDGE)

AND:

¶1SUNIL DESAI AGED MAJOR SON OF 'NOT KNOWN' PRESIDENT, RESIDING AT UNIT NO F-401 SHRIRAM SUHAANA APARTMENTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION SHRIRAM SUHAANA DODDABALLAPUR ROAD YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064 ...ACCUSED (BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 27.09.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.4253/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS APPEAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1The appellant is an association of apartment owners that has filed the present appeal challenging an order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4253/2023 (GM-RES). Respondent No. 1 [writ petitioner] had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the appellant as well as to Bengaluru Electric Supply Company Limited [BESCOM] to consider his representation regarding providing an electric connection for charging his electric vehicle.

¶2The writ petitioner is the owner of a residential apartment in the Shriram Suhaana Residential Apartment complex. The petitioner seeks permission to install an electric charging point for his electric vehicle in the parking slot.

¶3It is the appellant's case that the apartment complex comprises ten towers, and it is stated that not all the apartment owners have parking slots in the same towers where their apartment is located. In some cases, apartment owners have been assigned car parking slots in different towers. Thus, providing electric points for charging vehicles would result in a crisscross of wires, which may be unsafe.

¶4The learned Single Judge considered the said issue and disposed of the petition in terms of the following directions: "7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a specific direction to the 3rd respondent association to consult the experts in the matter of giving permission to individual apartment owners like the petitioner to have their own dedicated charging station in the car parking area and thereafter proceed if the experts are the opinion that permission can be granted while following the requirement of law and guidelines issued by the BESCOM and Regulatory authority.

¶8Needless to observe that if the petitioner is also willing to get the experts to sit along with the association and decide as to whether the request made by the petitioner could be considered and allotted, he may do so. The petitioner may also participate in the consultation process that the 3rd respondent association would do along with the expert. The 3rd respondent shall ensure that advise of the experts are taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to enable the petitioner to have a dedicated electrical charging station."

¶5As is apparent from the above, the learned Single Judge has merely directed the appellant to consult experts to find a solution whereby apartment owners who desire the facility of a charging point for their electric vehicles could avail themselves of the said facility. However, the appellant has filed the present appeal raising several issues, including the maintainability of the writ petition.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed a memo, inter alia, stating that it has no objection if the writ petitioner is directed to approach BESCOM as per Rule 15 of the Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Amendment Rules, 2024, to obtain a separate connection for the supply of an electric vehicle charging system. However, it is necessary to ensure that the other apartment owners are not adversely affected by any such installation.

¶7The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner has been provided with a separate

electricity connection and the load sanctioned is sufficient to cater to the charging of an electric vehicle.

¶8The learned counsel appearing for BESCOM submits that there is no difficulty if the petitioner draws a wire from his meter for a charging point for his electric vehicle. She referred to "the Operational Guidelines to be followed for arranging power supply to EV Charging Stations (EVCS) set up in the premises of the oil/Fuel outlets and arranging power supply to EV Charging Stations

(EVCS) either for Captive use or for public use (at common area) set up in the premises of residential complexes" and drew our attention to the following passage from the said guidelines: "Individual Flat owners/consumers/occupiers who are allocated a specific parking space in Multi-storeyed buildings/Complexes and wishing to install EV charging stations/points for all type of vehicles including two wheelers, are allowed to connect such units within their existing sanctioned load or, if necessary, enhance the load as per the requirement with the approval of the Distribution licensee under the existing Installation category tariff. Alternatively, they may choose a new connection under the EV charging tariff category determined by the Commission from time to time and get it sanctioned from the jurisdictional BESCOM office (sanctioning as per DoP). The appropriate wiring/cabling shall be extended from the Metering Panel to where the charging

stations/points are located complying with the CEA safety standards/Regulations."

¶9She submits that in view of the said guidelines, the writ petitioner is at liberty to install EV charging system in the parking slot assigned to him.

¶10In view of the consensus between the parties, we do not consider it apposite to examine the other questions raised in the present appeal.

¶11The appellant has no grievance with consulting an expert to assess the feasibility of providing EVCS to apartment owners, if they desire.

¶12The car parking slot allotted to the petitioner is in the same tower as his apartment. Therefore, he is at liberty to install EVCS in accordance with the guidelines referred to by the learned counsel appearing for BESCOM. However, the petitioner shall ensure that the same does not cause any inconvenience or risk to any other apartment owner.

¶13In view of the above, CCC No. 495/2024 – the petition filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge –is also closed.

¶14The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16