The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a provisional order and notice for alleged construction violations. The Court held that since alternative efficacious remedies exist through confirmation orders and subsequent appeals, it would not interfere at this stage.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:23893 WP No. 14491 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.14491 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI BALAJI .A S/O ANAND. S., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.9, 80/H, 1ST CROSS, MARENHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHAKTHIDHAR S SHANKER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
NC: 2023:KHC:23893 WP No. 14491 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 R/W 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER, DATED 20/12/2022 BEARING NO.SA.NE.NA.YO.(PA)/PO/37/22-23 UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE ACT, 2020 AND THE PASSED BY THE R2 AND 3 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, DATED 20/12/2022 BEARING NO.SA.NE. NA.YO.(PA)/P/O/37/22-23 UNDER SECTION 248(2) OF THE BRUHAT MAHANAGAR PALIKE ACT, 2020 (THE BBMP ACT) ISSUED BY R2 AND R3, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW (ANNEXURE-A AND A1 & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned counsel - Sri Pawan Kumar, who is present
in the Court takes notice for all the respondents.
short) and a show cause notice dated 20th December 2022 at Anenxure-A1 issued under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020.
sanctioned plan. Nevertheless, the petitioner could not have filed the writ petition challenging the notices issued by the competent authority invoking the provisions governing the construction taken up by the petitioner. In terms of the provisions, the statutory authority has issued notices to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to satisfy the officers who have issued the notices that he has not violated the sanctioned plan. Even if a confirmation order is passed by the competent authority, an appeal provision is available for the petitioner. Therefore, when there is availability of alternative and efficacious remedy on confirmation order being passed by the competent authority, this Court will not entertain this writ petition.
Needless to observe that the 3rd respondent who has issued the impugned provisional order and the notice shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and grant time to the petitioner to challenge the orders that could be passed by the competent authority, before the
NC: 2023:KHC:23893 WP No. 14491 of 2023
Appellate Authority, in terms of the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a provisional order and notice issued under the BBMP Act where an alternative remedy via appeal is available.
Whether the existence of a statutory confirmation order with an appeal provision precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction at the preliminary stage.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI BALAJI .A S/O ANAND. S.
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
R DEVDAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
