High Court Karnataka High Court

Island Star Mall Developers vs The Managing Director on 17 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Island Star Mall Developers vs The Managing Director on 17 June, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
c  in this regard by the petitioner
~iIIe--_pefitioner has approached this court for
   isstiieiof  to comps! the respondents to

power connection to the petitioner.
of mandamus while can be issued only on a

of statutory right or constitutions} right, cannot be

THIS WRIT PE’I’I’§’IOI’~I IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226″”AND
227 OF THE CONS’I’I’I”U’§’ION OF’ INEIA PRAYING TO DIREC’l’..T}§_E
RESPONDENT COMPANY TO CONSIDER AND PASS AFPRQPREATEI
ORDERS ON THE REPRESENTATIONS SO F’ILE_§.”””E?sY’-.._f’I1~i:_E
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURES – G AND H DT. 224§2.20Q8″e-A’?~!oD”e I
28.3.2008 RESPECTIVELY AND E’I’C., .

THIS PE’I’I’I’ION COMING on FOR :’ér§e£:m1NARY’ H.EA§;,r§o”j3*”«

GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F_OLIJOW~I_NG:_

Q_B_E§;;§

This writ petition: umited
company which is in T izenyixlg land for
development and’ resale of Icontext of the
supply or basis to the
petitioner .. :3: . }that the respondent—
BESCO1\Ii—__is to provide temporary

power ” petitioner notwithstanding

o;£eonsuni:)tio:1’chargm which was to the tune of

liable to pay the said amount, as the
attached to the successors in intenest and
power supply had not been provided to the

l “‘pet;ltfoner.

3

issued for non-consideration of any and
representation made by a person like the petitic’>nefiIf’,;”
assuming such nepresentation does A l
gievance which may be genuine in ‘ ‘V

3. However, as notices __ Elle
respondents, the respondzentsfV-sseenesy by
their counsel Sri N K a submission
that the respondents to provide
power supply yto temporary basis
for the purchased by the
Pfifififlflervihfid it earlier and it was found

that in respeet-.01′ the installation, was in arrws of

any person who may purchase the

V

‘V exexnjne the””1r1atter any further in the light of the

V respontienfiivl’ is open to the petitioner to avail of the
‘ ” offer as ineiie the leamed counsel for the respondents
VA the matter with the respondents themselves,

“it as a writ of mandamus cannot be issued by

4

4. It is further submitted that the respondents are
however now inclined to examine the request of the

petitioner for temporary gmwer connection pending

consideration of the representatiohglll
aspect of providing any relief .or__.coneeve’sion ‘V *’
the outstanding amount, if the and
Willing to remit j’ of lakh
towards such for
providing the

5. A’ counsel for the
petitioner;-lvtrould: many other grounds in

support. of it is not necessary for this

by the learned counsel for the

a/

5

this court in the absence of any stmutory rights of

6. In the result, this Writ paition itselféis K

° the submission made bythe * 7}’

the respomlents.