Allowed¶46

Rajesh Ravi v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2025WP/21512/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), WP 21512/2025 (LB-BMP), 21.07.2025: BBMP Act 2020 S.248(3) demolition order; authority of Assistant Executive Engineer vs Zonal Commissioner left to S.253 appellate authority; BESCOM electricity disconnection during pendency of Appeal No.151/2025 held premature and unsustainable; Annexure-H order dated 17.02.2025 quashed; bar on coercive/consequential action by BBMP/BESCOM till demolition order attains finality.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 17.02.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-H) quashed and set aside; Respondents No.3 and 4 at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with the Section 248(3) order, subject to the outcome of the pending Appeal No.151/2025; all rival contentions left open. ¶46

Rajesh Ravi Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3, an Assistant Executive Engineer, had authority to pass the demolition order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, the said power being contended to be conferred only upon the Zonal Commissioner. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

Since the petitioner has availed the Section 253 remedy and the appeal is pending adjudication, the legality of the demolition order, including whether the Assistant Executive Engineer had authority to pass it, will have to be examined by the appellate authority.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Disconnection of electricity by Respondent No.4 pursuant to Respondent No.3's impugned communication, while the appeal remains pending, is premature and unsustainable in law.

¶38

Key takeaways

Until the demolition order attains finality upon adjudication by the competent appellate authority, no coercive or consequential action can be initiated either by BBMP or BESCOM officials.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) — Demolition order confirmed under S.248(3), BBMP Act, 2020, by Assistant Executive Engineer (Respondent No.3) on 20.01.2025 after provisional order/show cause notice by Zonal Commissioner under S.248(1) & (2) — Petitioner had already availed statutory appeal under S.253 before Respondent No.1 (Appeal No.151/2025, pending) — Despite pendency, Respondent No.4 (BESCOM) disconnected electricity per Respondent No.3's communication dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure-H) — Held, such disconnection is premature and unsustainable in law; until the demolition order attains finality upon adjudication by the competent appellate authority, no coercive or consequential action can be initiated by BBMP or BESCOM officials; legality of the demolition order, including the authority of the Assistant Executive Engineer vis-à-vis the Zonal Commissioner to pass a S.248(3) order, is left to the appellate authority — Impugned order dated 17.02.2025 quashed and set aside; Respondents 3 and 4 free to act under the S.248(3) order subject to appeal outcome; all rival contentions left open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27363 WP No. 21512 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 21512 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAJESH RAVI S/O. RAVI GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 5-440 ANUMANTH NAGAR, HOSUR, CHINNAELASAGRI, ZUZUVADI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-635 126.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶15

ZONAL COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP R.H.B COLONY, ITPL MAIN ROAD, OPP. OF PHOENIX MALL, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560 048.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HODI SUB DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION, BENGALUR-560 048.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27363 WP No. 21512 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM), E-12, MAHADEVAPURA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶20

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 048.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, 2, 3 AND 5)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶24

ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER NO. BBMP/SA.KA.AA/HO.HU.VI/648/2024-25 DATED 17-02-2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, HOODI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner owns a residential house in site bearing No.41, Khatha No.10 in Sy.No.191. Petitioner asserts that he has obtained building plan vide BBMP/CC/3211/24-25 with LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com./MDP/0145/24-25 dated 12.06.2024 from respondent No.5. Petitioner was issued with provisional order

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27363 WP No. 21512 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

and show cause notice by respondent No.2-Zonal

¶32

Commissioner under Sections 248(1) and 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The respondent No.3 vide order dated 20.01.2025 has confirmed the provisional order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020.

¶33

The petitioner has challenged the demolition order issued under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, primarily on the ground that respondent No.3–Assistant Executive Engineer had no authority to pass such an order, as the said power is conferred only upon the Zonal Commissioner under the provisions of the Act.

¶34

The records reveal that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020. The said appeal is presently pending consideration before the appellate authority, namely respondent No.1. Despite the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.4 has acted upon the communication issued by respondent No.3 and has proceeded to disconnect the electricity supply to the petitioner's premises, as evidenced by Annexure–H1.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27363 WP No. 21512 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Upon careful scrutiny of the records, this Court is of the considered view that an order of demolition of immovable property has serious legal consequences, particularly affecting a citizen’s property rights. The Act provides for a statutory appeal mechanism under Section 253 against a demolition order passed under Section 248(3). Since the petitioner has exercised this remedy and the appeal is pending adjudication, the legality of the demolition order including the question as to whether the Assistant Executive Engineer had the authority to pass such an order will have to be examined by the appellate authority.

¶38

In the meantime, this Court is of the opinion that the action taken by respondent No.4 pursuant to the impugned communication of respondent No.3 namely, disconnection of electricity is premature and unsustainable in law. Until the demolition order attains finality upon adjudication by the competent appellate authority, no coercive or consequential action can be initiated either by BBMP or BESCOM officials. Accordingly, the order dated 17.02.2025 issued by respondent

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:27363 WP No. 21512 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

No.3 and directing disconnection of electricity supply is liable to

¶43

be quashed.

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

(ii) The impugned order dated 17.02.2025 issued by respondent No.3, as per Annexure–H, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶47

(iii) It is, however, made clear that respondents No.3 and 4 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, subject to the outcome of the petitioner’s pending appeal in Appeal No.151/2025.

¶48

(iv) All rival contentions are left open.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶51

SBN

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Rajesh Ravi v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Ravi 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

Sri H G Basavaraju Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Noor Fathima Jamal Vs Union of India

Mr. Suhas L Vs the Cheif Registrar Births and Deaths

Shri Manju G Gowda Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Late Sri. S P Francis Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt. Mary Francis Vs Sri.Hari

Mathrushree Mutyalaya Enterprises Vs the Commissioner