Dismissed

Sri Naveen Bangalore Indusekharan v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2023WP/11152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging deemed approval of submission under BBMP Act, 2020. Court disposed of petition allowing appeal to Chief Commissioner against provisional orders due to lack of communication to petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of permitting petitioners to file appeal before Chief Commissioner within fifteen days. Respondents restrained from precipitating matter.

Sri Naveen Bangalore Indusekharan Vs the Chief… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25473 WP No. 11152 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 11152 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NAVEEN BANGALORE INDUSEKHARAN, S/O B S INDUSEKHARAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶9

SMT SHANTHA SHEKAR, W/O B S INDUSEKHARAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.14, 5TH CROSS,BARODA BANK LAYOUT J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE BENGALURU-560 078

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. H.R UMADEVI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-02

¶16

JDTP-SOUTH, TOWN PLANNING SECTION, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,

¶17

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560 045

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE LAKE DEPARTMENT,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:25473 WP No. 11152 of 2022

¶21

HEAD OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR ANNEXURE BUILDING-03 N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-02

¶22

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ANJANAPURA SUB DIVISION 2ND MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS, R B I LAYOUT J P NAGAR, 7TH STAGE BENGALURU-560 078

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶24

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 020

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. SINCHANA M R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A DATED 06.04.2022 AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25473 WP No. 11152 of 2022

¶30

ORDER

¶31

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶32

The petitioners are seeking a declaration that the plan submitted by them online on 24.03.2021 is deemed to be approved in terms of sub Section 6 of Section 240 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, and that the respondents should be directed not to take cohesive steps.

¶33

Learned counsel seeks to contend that although the application was filed online on 24.03.2021, there was no consideration of the application within the prescribed period and in such event of the competent authority not communicating the decision on such an application within the described period, the application shall be deemed to be approved. However, during the course of these proceedings, information has been made available at the hands of the respondent, BBMP, that the application filed online by the petitioners was rejected on 17.04.2021 for the reasons that the 'drawing failed in the format/drawing not in format'.

¶34

That being the position, it is sought to be contended at the hands of the respondent-BBMP that there cannot be a

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25473 WP No. 11152 of 2022

¶36

deemed sanction of the plan submitted by the petitioners. Moreover, notices were issued under the provisions of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, more particularly, under Section 248 of the Act, provisional orders have been passed, show cause notices have been issued, and thereafter confirmation orders is also passed. A copy of all such orders is today served on the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶37

However, even as per the information available at the hands of the respondent-BBMP, the communications were said to have been made to one Sri.Prasad and not the petitioners. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were not informed of any such notice/order and since they were not heard before such orders passed, they may be permitted to approach the Chief Commissioner invoking the appeal provision, and till then, protection should be given to the petitioners.

¶38

Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition stands disposed of, permitting the petitioners to file an appeal before the Chief Commissioner calling in question, the provisional orders and confirmation

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:25473 WP No. 11152 of 2022

¶40

¶41

orders were issued by respondent No.4-Assistant Executive Engineer, Anjanapura Sub-Division, BBMP, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If, such an appeal is filed within the time stipulated therein. Respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter and to await the outcome of the appeal, which would be filed by the petitioners.

¶42

Ordered accordingly.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sri Naveen Bangalore Indusekharan v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Naveen Bangalore Indusekharan v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Popular Advertisers Vs State of Karnataka

Vaishak N Naik Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Chinnaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. J. Shivalinge Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. M L Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka