Dismissed¶43

Sri Mohan v. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2025WP/10961/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: locus standi; maintainability of writ petition; public interest standing; member of public questioning illegal construction; unauthorised construction; municipal laws; sanctioned building plan; Article 226; Articles 226 and 227; adjoining property owner; directly or substantially affected person; K. Ramadas Shenoy (1974) 2 SCC 506 distinguished; BBMP / Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike; representation dated 13.01.2025; dismissal with liberty to pursue other remedies. Bench: single judge, Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.; decided 02-06-2025; WP No. 10961 of 2025 (LB-BMP); no dissenting opinion.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available in accordance with law, if so advised. ¶43

Sri Mohan v Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner possesses the legal locus standi to maintain the writ petition seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 13.01.2025 concerning construction allegedly undertaken by the private respondents.

¶30

Court's answer

The petitioner is neither the adjoining property owner nor a person directly or substantially affected by the construction allegedly undertaken by the private respondents; his interest is general in nature and he has not demonstrated any specific injury or infringement of a legally protected right justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

K. Ramadas Shenoy (unauthorised cinema theatre in a residential zone, violating statutory provisions and directly affecting the residential character of the locality) is clearly distinguishable on facts; in the present matter there is no material on record showing that the alleged illegal construction has any immediate bearing on the petitioner's property, rights or interests.

¶41

Key takeaways

The petitioner does not possess the requisite legal standing to maintain the present writ petition, which is therefore held to be not maintainable.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) dismissed as not maintainable for want of locus standi. The petitioner, who sought a direction to BBMP authorities to consider his representation dated 13.01.2025 regarding construction allegedly undertaken by private respondents, was found to be neither the adjoining property owner nor a person directly or substantially affected; his interest being general in nature, no specific injury or infringement of a legally protected right was shown to justify invocation of Article 226 jurisdiction. Reliance on K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi & Others, (1974) 2 SCC 506, was rejected: that case involved unauthorised construction of a cinema theatre in a residential zone in violation of statutory provisions, directly affecting the locality's residential character, and was clearly distinguishable; no material showed any immediate bearing of the alleged illegal construction on the petitioner's property, rights or interests. Liberty reserved to pursue other remedies available in law, if so advised. (Paras 3-6; Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18469 WP No. 10961 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10961 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MOHAN V, S/O. K. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, KUVEMPU ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHINMAY G. KURANDWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR DIVISION, BENGALURU EAST - 560 093.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR DIVISION, BENGALURU EAST - 560 093.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:18469 WP No. 10961 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. THUPALLI VENKATA RAMANAREDDY, S/O. NAGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT. NO.107, SDILPASADAN C BLOCK, MARUTHI NAGAR, NEAR S P BANGALOW, RAJAREDDY STREET, CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 001.

¶20

SRI. R. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S/O. SIDDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT KICHLLI VANDLA PALLI GARNIMITTA, KAMBHAMVARIPALLE, CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 213.

¶21

SRI. THUPALLI BRAMHANANDA REDDY, S/O. T. NARASAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT. MORAMKINDAPALLI, CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 237.

¶22

SRI. MOPURAM ADITYA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/42, KUMMARAPALLI, ROUTHUKUNTA, SAMBEPALLE CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 215.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH P. DEASI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF TH CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.01.2025 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANX-A1 TO A3 IN THE TIME BOUND MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18469 WP No. 10961 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This Court, having heard the submissions of the petitioner and upon examining the reliefs sought in the present writ petition, had, by its earlier order dated 09.04.2025, directed the petitioner to demonstrate his legal locus standi to maintain this petition. In compliance, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to establish the petitioner's locus by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi & Others , reported in (1974) 2 SCC 506 , to contend that any member of the public has the right to question illegal constructions that violate municipal laws and sanctioned building plans.

¶31

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the issue of maintainability, as well as the learned standing counsel representing respondents No.1 to 3.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:18469 WP No. 10961 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The court has also perused the material placed on record in the

¶36

writ proceedings.

¶37

Upon a detailed examination of the pleadings and documents in the writ record, this Court finds that the petitioner is neither the adjoining property owner nor a person directly or substantially affected by the construction allegedly undertaken by the private respondents. The petitioner's interest, as projected in the petition, appears to be general in nature, and he has not demonstrated any specific injury or infringement of a legally protected right that would justify invocation of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ramadas Shenoy (supra), which is strongly relied upon by the petitioner, arose in the context of an unauthorised construction of a cinema theatre in a residential zone, which was found to be in violation of statutory provisions and directly affected the residential character of the locality. The facts of

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18469 WP No. 10961 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

that case, and the nature of the grievance raised therein, are clearly distinguishable from the present case. In the instant matter, there is no material placed on record to show that the construction alleged to be illegal has any immediate bearing on the petitioner’s property, rights, or interests.

¶42

In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not possess the requisite legal standing to maintain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from pursuing any other remedy that may be available to him in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶43

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty as reserved.

¶44

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶45

HDK

¶46

CT: BHK

Sri Mohan v. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohan v. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Manikant Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Vithal Bharma Hubli, Vs Shri Vinayak S/O Dwarkanath Deshpande

Smt. Praveena W/O Jagadish Pavaskar, Vs the Tahashildar, Yellapur

Sri Vinod M L Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Sri K P Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vimalamma M Vs the Chief Commissioner