MUNIYAMMA Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order dtd. 27/12/2021 passed by respondent no.1, at Annexure-A and seeking for direction to respondent nos.1 and 2 for providing power connection to building constructed by petitioner at K. Choodahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, this writ petition is filed by petitioner.

(2.) Sri Rajagopala Naidu, learned counsel for petitioner, at outset submitted that petitioner was in possession of house constructed by him in land bearing Sy.no.79/4 of which he was one of co-owners under oral partition. He submitted that despite having filed application to respondent nos.1 and 2 for sanction of power connection, respondents who had earlier sanctioned temporary connection, illegally rejected petitioner's request on pretext of failure to produce records.

(3.) It was submitted that all requisite records were produced along with application/representation at Annexure-F. However, respondent no.1 erroneously observed that no records were produced. Since same was contrary to records, petitioner sought to quash same and issue direction to sanction power to his building.