Disposed¶34

Murugan P v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2025WP/20626/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), WP No. 20626 of 2025 (LB-BMP), decided 10 July 2025, Sachin Shankar Magadum J. BBMP Act, 2020 - Section 248(3) confirmation order dated 22.04.2024; Section 240(8) regularization application; Section 253 appeal before Chief Commissioner. Holding: no statutory obligation on respondent No.1 to consider a subsequent Section 240(8) application after Section 248(3) confirmation; writ disposed with liberty to appeal; two-week bar on giving effect to the confirmation order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to appeal, if so advised, against the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3); respondents directed not to give effect to the confirmation order for a period of two weeks from the date of the order ¶34

Murugan P Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 can be entertained when the petitioners have not availed the efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 253 before the Chief Commissioner of BBMP +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

This Court is not inclined to entertain the petitioners' contention, which is found to be without legal merit.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Once a confirmation order has been passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, respondent No.1 is under no statutory obligation to consider the petitioners' subsequent application filed under Section 240(8) of the said Act.

¶32

Key takeaways

It is always open to the petitioners to challenge the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3) by availing the remedy available under law.ratio¶32
Reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal, if so advised, against the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3), the writ petition stands disposed of.ratio¶34
The respondents shall not give effect to the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3) for a period of two weeks from the date of the order, to enable the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 22.04.2024 (No. BBMP/SA.KA.AA/HU.HU.VI/C.AA/642/2023-24) issued by respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 (Annexure-H), and seeking a mandamus against respondent No.1 to expedite and decide the petitioners' application under Section 240(8) seeking regularization. Held: once a confirmation order has been passed under Section 248(3), respondent No.1 is under no statutory obligation to consider the petitioners' subsequent Section 240(8) application; the petitioners' course is to challenge the confirmation order by availing the remedy available under law, the appeal remedy under Section 253 before the Chief Commissioner having gone unavailed. The petitioners' contention was found without legal merit; the writ petition stood disposed of with liberty reserved to appeal, and the respondents were directed not to give effect to the confirmation order for two weeks from the date of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25835 WP No. 20626 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20626 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MURUGAN .P S/O LATE PADMANABHAN .K.S AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT SITE NO. 7, 4TH CROSS CAMBRIDGE GARDEN LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560048.

¶9

REGINA .P W/O MURUGAN .P AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SITE NO. 7, 4TH CROSS CAMBRIDGE GARDEN LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560048.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR .M.B, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGLAURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HODI SUB DIVISION MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION BENGALURU-560048.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:25835 WP No. 20626 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM), E-7 SUB DIVISION BENGALURU-560016.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. ANUSHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024 VIDE NO. BBMP/SA.KA.AA/HU.HU.VI/C.AA/642/2023-24 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF THE BBMP ACT BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This is a cleverly drafted writ petition with a view to secure some respite at the hands of writ Court under Article 227. While petitioners have suffered an order under Section 248(3) of BBMP Act, 2020, instead of availing efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 253 before Chief Commissioner of BBMP, an application is moved under section 240(8) seeking regularization and this writ petition is filed challenging the confirmation order

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:25835 WP No. 20626 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

under Section 248(3) as well as a mandamus against respondent No.1 to expedite and decide the application filed under Section 240(8).

¶32

This Court is not inclined to entertain the petitioners' contention, which is found to be without legal merit. When a confirmation order has already been passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, respondent No.1 is under no statutory obligation to consider the petitioners' subsequent application filed under Section 240(8) of the said Act. However, it is always open for the petitioners to challenge the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3) by availing the remedy available under law.

¶33

In view of the above, while reserving liberty to

¶34

the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal, if so advised, against the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3), the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:25835 WP No. 20626 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is further directed that the respondents shall

¶39

not give effect to the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3) for a period of two weeks from the date of this order, so as to enable the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶40

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶41

CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Murugan P v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan P v. the Chief Commissioner

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

M/S Federation of Residents Community Entities Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Govindaiah N Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Mr. Oswald Dsilva Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Pushpalatha J Jogottu Vs Sri. Lakshmisha

Hanumanthappa Vs B. Rudrappa

Rangaiah Vs Thimmakka