Allowed

Sri Tarun Kumar Gupta v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023WP/3277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash a number lodged by BRBMP under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, holding that expressed objections by the petitioners were not considered, thus setting aside the order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration with opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned confirmatory order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is set aside and the matter is remitted to consider objections and pass necessary orders within eight weeks, affording an opp

Sri Tarun Kumar Gupta Vs Bruhat Bengaluru… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3277 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.3277 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI TARUN KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SATYA NARAYAN GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS.

¶10

SRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SATYA NARAYANA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS.

¶11

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT H-43/44, SHRIRAM SADHANA APARTMENT, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, GOKULA, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶13

SRI GUNASEKAR M R S/O LATE M R RUKMANGATHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, H-45, SHRIRAM SADHANA APARTMENT, M.S. RAMAIAH ROAD, GOKULA, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶14

¶15

WP No. 3277 of 2023

¶16

SRI K SADANANDAN

¶17

S/O LATE D VISHWANATHA MENON, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, H-42, SHRIRAM SADHANA APARTMENT, M.S. RAMAIAH ROAD, GOKULA, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

¶22

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WARD NUMBER 16, 17, 37, 38, 42, 2ND FLOOR, RTO COMPLEX, KAMALA NEHRU EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶25

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON UNDATED IMPUGNED ORDER IN APPEAL NO.218/2022 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2, NO.219/2022 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.3 AND NO.220/2022 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WHEREIN CONFIRMING THE NOTICE/ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.SA.KA.NI.A(U)/PR/297/22-23 DATED 05/11/2022

¶27

¶28

WP No. 3277 of 2023

¶29

AT ANNEXURE-B2 ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC 248(3) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 IN (1) NO.SA.KA.NI.A(U)/CO/11/22-23 DATED 14/09/2022 AT ANNEXURE-B1 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 (2) NO.SA.KA.NI.A(U)/PR/07/22-23 DATED 30/08/2022 AT ANNEXURE-C10 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.3 AND (3) NO.SA.KA.NI.A(U)/CO/06/22-23 DATED 14/09/2022 AT ANNEXURE -D1 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.4.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶33

following relief:

¶34

"To quash the common undated impugned order in Appeal No.218/2022 in respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, No. 219/2022 in respect of petitioner No.3 and No.220/2022 in respect of petitioner No.4 vide Annexure-A passed by respondent No.1 wherein, confirming the notice/order passed by respondent No.2 in No.Sa.Ka.Ni.A(U)/PR/297/22-23 dated 5/11/2022 at Annexure-B2 on the basis of the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 in (1) No.Sa.Ka.Ni.A(U)/CO/11/22-23 dated 14/09/2022 Annexure-B1 in respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, (2) No.Sa.Ka.Ni.A(U)/PR/07/22-23 dated 30/08/2022 at Annexure-C10 in respect of petitioner No.3 and (3) No.Sa.Ka.Ni.A(U)/Co/06/2223 dated 14/09/2022 at Annexure-D1 in respect of petitioner No.4."

¶35

The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite

¶36

objections having been filed by the petitioners to show-cause notice under Section 248(1) of the

¶37

¶38

WP No. 3277 of 2023

¶39

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, (for short, 'the B.B.M.P. Act'), the same is not being considered and the confirmatory order passed under Section 248(3) of the B.B.M.P. Act, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there is no objections which have been filed by the petitioners as recorded under Section 248(1) of the B.B.M.P. Act.

¶40

A perusal of the order passed under Section 248(3) of the B.B.M.P. Act indicates that, objections have been filed on 5-9-2022 (Annexure-B13) and bears the seal of the Assistant Executive Engineer. The said objections are required to be considered before order under Section 248(3) of the B.B.M.P. Act. In view of the same, I pass the following:

¶41

¶42

WP No. 3277 of 2023

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

i. Writ petition is allowed ;

¶45

ii. The common impugned order passed in Appeal Nos.218, 219 and 220 of 2022 by respondent No.1 confirming the order passed by respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the B.B.M.P. Act is set aside;

¶46

iii. The matter is remitted back to consider the objections and pass necessary orders thereon within a period of eight weeks' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶47

iv. It is needless to say that respondent No.1 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and

¶48

¶49

WP No. 3277 of 2023

¶50

v. Since the order is passed in the presence of both the learned counsel, the petitioners shall be present before respondent No.1 on 18-3-2023 @ 2:30 p.m., without requiring any further notice.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri Tarun Kumar Gupta v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tarun Kumar Gupta v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Smt Krishnamma Vs the Joint Registrar of

K.T.Muinivenkata Reddy Vs State by Its

L. K. Suresh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

T Amarsingh Vs the Chief Adminsitrative Officer

Mrs Renuka Manghnani Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Puttathyamma Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal