Ramesh v Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44686 WP No. 22916 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22916 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH V. AGED 62 YEARS, S/O VENKATA KRISHNA RAO G, R/AT NO. 171, VENKATADRI, 13^TH CROSS, 3^RD PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI, 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU : 560085 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.K.N.NITHISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE 560001.

¶14

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER (SOUTH ZONE), BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NO. 08, 9^TH CROSS ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU : 560011

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NO. 08, 9^TH CROSS ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU : 560011

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44686 WP No. 22916 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WARD NO. 158, DEEPANJALI NAGAR, BENGALURU : 560026

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM, GIRINAGAR, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560026

¶20

SATHYATHEERTHA FOUNDATION TRUST, A REGISTERED TRUST, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TRUST ACT, 1882 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE NO.177 AND 178, 3^RD PHASE, GIRINAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU- 560085.

¶21

SRI. SRIDHAR, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF SATHYATHEERTHA FOUNDATION TRUST, NO.177 AND 178, 3^RD PHASE, GIRINAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU- 560085.

¶22

PURNAPRAMATHI FOUNDATION, A REGISTERED TRUST UNDER THE TRUST ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, NO.177 AND 178, 3^RD PHASE, GIRINAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU- 560085.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SMT.ANUSHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5;

¶25

SRI.VENKATESH P DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 8)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTING

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44686 WP No. 22916 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURES N, N1, N2 DATED 21.07.2025 AND N3 DATED 22.07.2025 AND TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE ILLEGAL BUILDING, WITHIN A TIME FRAME AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider his representation dated 21.07.2025 at Annexures - N, N1 and N2 and dated 22.07.2025 at Annexure - N3 and take necessary action against the illegal construction put up by the respondent Nos.6 to 8. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.5 to consider the representation dated 21.07.2025 and to disconnect the electricity connection.

¶34

It appears that the petitioner is the owner of a property adjacent to the property where the respondent Nos.6 to 8 are putting up construction. The petitioner alleged that the construction so put up by respondent Nos.6 to 8 was not in accordance with law, which resulted in an order passed under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act,

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44686 WP No. 22916 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

2020 (henceforth referred to as 'the BBMP Act, 2020' for short). The petitioner thereafter submitted representations to the respondents to stop the construction and implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.6 to 8 are continuing the construction and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have not taken any steps to implement the order. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for the aforementioned reliefs.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are continuing with the construction even though an order is passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. He therefore submits that the only way to rein in the respondent Nos.6 to 8 is to direct the respondent No.5 to disconnect the electricity and also to direct the respondent No.4 to implement the order. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 submits that an appeal is filed before the Chief Commissioner challenging the confirmation order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. He therefore prays that no direction be issued until the appeal before the Chief Commissioner is considered.

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:44686 WP No. 22916 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The respondent Nos.6 to 8 have a remedy of a statutory appeal before the Chief Commissioner. The respondent

¶43

Nos.6 to 8 have filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner and the same is pending consideration. Therefore, until the appeal is considered by the Chief Commissioner, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020.

¶44

In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed for the time being. However, it is open for the petitioner to renew his request once the appeal before the Chief Commissioner is decided.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

BKN

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Ramesh v. Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Anjanamurthy N Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Padma Vs the City Municipal Council

Balamma Vs Principal Secretary

Smt Lokeshwari Vs Smt Saraswathamma

Mr Manjunath Vs the Executive Officer

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Kirloskar Electric Company Employees Housing Co. Op Society (Regd.)