Contempt complaint alleging disobedience of a writ order directing the BDA to consider an application under Section 38-D of the BDA Act. The accused filed a memo with an endorsement dated 24.02.2026 rejecting the application; the court closed the complaint, leaving the complainants free to pursue substantive remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:32441-DB CCC No. 924 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.924 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
PUTTENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, 6TH PHASE, J.P.NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 078.
Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SMT. KUSUMA M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
… PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
NC: 2026:KHC:32441-DB CCC No. 924 of 2025
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560020.
…ACCUSED
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR PRO FORMA RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO. 2)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS DATED 14.11.2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.21177/2022 (BDA) READ WITH ORDER DATED 05.11.2024 IN CCC NO.1074/2024 (CIVIL) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
HC-KAR
liberty in favour of the complainants to take recourse to such remedies as available in law, including filing an application under Section 38-D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [BDA Act] along with all relevant documents. The court had also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. However, the court directed that if an application is filed by the complainants along with relevant documents, the BDA would address the grievance and pass appropriate orders.
NC: 2026:KHC:32441-DB CCC No. 924 of 2025
HC-KAR
with law.
Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the BDA's failure to decide the complainants' Section 38-D BDA Act application despite earlier directions amounted to contempt.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri K.R. Nataraja
Sri Mahesh
State of Karnataka, Department of House and Urban
Sri Major Manivannan P., Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
Vibhu Bakhru
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
