Sri. R. Vinodh Babu Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 07.02.2025 BEARING NOTICE NO. V.R/R.R.NO./P.O/93/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE R-2 i.e. THE ZONAL OFFICER, BBMP UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF THE BBMP

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

FOR STOPPING THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS ANNEXED AS ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners in the present writ petition have assailed the provisional order dated 07.02.2025, issued under Section 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Act, 2020, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. The said provisional order directs the petitioners to show cause as to why the construction undertaken on their property should not be proceeded against for alleged unauthorized deviation.

¶34

The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned provisional order has been issued despite the fact that the construction carried out by them is in strict conformity with the sanctioned building plan and the building license issued by the competent authority. It is

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

further contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act was prompted solely at the behest of a third party, who is stated to be a Right to Information (RTI) activist, and not based on any independent inspection or assessment by the BBMP.

¶38

Taking note of the above contentions, this Court, by order dated 25.06.2025, directed the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP, Sri. Pawan Kumar, to secure instructions and verify the veracity of the statement made on oath by the petitioners to the effect that there is no deviation from the approved plan. On the subsequent date of hearing, learned counsel for the BBMP was unable to demonstrate or substantiate that the construction in question was in contravention of the applicable setback norms or any other statutory requirement under the building bye-laws.

¶39

Be that as it may, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the provisional order primarily on

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the ground that there is absolutely no deviation from the sanctioned plan. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners ought to be given an adequate opportunity to place on record their detailed objections to the said provisional order. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation, along with all relevant documents, explaining and substantiating their stand that the construction is in accordance with law.

¶43

If such objections and supporting material are submitted within the time prescribed under the Act, respondent No.2 shall duly consider the same in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 is further directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, after affording due opportunity to the petitioners and by strictly adhering to the procedural safeguards and substantive mandate contemplated under the said provision.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

With these observations, this Court passes the

¶47

following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶50

ii. The petitioners are granted liberty to submit a detailed objection and explanation in response to the provisional order issued under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020. Along with their objections, the petitioners may also furnish all relevant and supporting documents to substantiate their stand.

¶51

iii. Such objections and documents shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶52

iv. Upon receipt of the objections, respondent No.2 shall conduct a proper enquiry by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

orders in accordance with law, strictly in terms of the mandate under Section 248(3) of the Act.

¶57

v. Until the conclusion of the aforesaid enquiry, the petitioners shall be permitted to continue with the construction activities, if any, strictly at their own risk and responsibility.

¶58

vi. It is, however, made clear that any construction carried out by the petitioners pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 248(1) and (2) of the BBMP Act, 2020, shall be subject to the outcome of the final decision by respondent No.2.

¶59

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶60

HDK

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK

Sri. R. Vinodh Babu v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. R. Vinodh Babu v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Anne Dominic Vs Mr Samuel James Dominic

Mr. Sarwar Hussain Mir Vs M/S Deone Marketing Service

Sri Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri Thimmarayappa

Sri Devaraju G Vs the State of Karnataka

Malatesh Murthy Vs the Secretary

Arumugam Mythili Vs the State of Karnataka