Dismissed¶39

Sri Anand M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2026WP/11769/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, WP No. 11769 of 2026 (LB-BMP), B M Shyam Prasad J., 22-06-2026; writ petition under Articles 226/227 Constitution seeking action against alleged illegal construction by private respondents (Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976, Sections 321 and 356; demolition of unauthorised construction); petitioner filed memo to withdraw with liberty citing post-filing developments; dismissed as withdrawn without reserving liberty.

What did the court decide?

The circumstances why liberty must be reserved were not brought forth; hence the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn without reserving liberty. ¶39

Sri Anand M Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30726 WP No. 11769 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11769 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI ANAND M S/MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 186, NAYAKARA BEEDI, GANESHA TEMPLE ROAD, THOMAS TOWN POST KACHERKANAHALLI BENGALURU 560084.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWARA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL. SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:30726 WP No. 11769 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP WARD NO. 29 O/AT NO. WARD NO. 29, BBMP WARD OFFICE KACHARKANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560043.

¶21

N. THYAGARAJAN S/O LATE NATRAJAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO. 10, BUDHA ROAD, JAI BHARAT NAGAR, BENGALURU 560033.

¶22

SUGANTH KUMAR THIYAGARAJAN S/O THYAGARAJAN N. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO. 10, BUDHA ROAD, JAI BHARAT NAGAR, BENGALURU 560033.

¶23

M/S SOWPARNIKA VENTURES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.49, NORTH EAST PLATINUM. KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560016.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:30726 WP No. 11769 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

DIRECTING THE R3 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST THE R4 AND 5 BY CONSIDERING THE COMPLAINT/ REPRESENTATION DATED 12.02.2026 VIDE ANNX-G; DIRECTING THE R1 TO 3 TO FORTHWITH TAKE ACTION UNDER SECTION 321 AND 356 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT 1976 AGAINST THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY R4 TO 6 AND DIRECT R1 TO 3 TO INITIATE DEMOLITION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner has invoked this Court's

¶34

jurisdiction for direction to the Officers of the Greater Bengaluru Authority to take action against the alleged illegal construction by the private respondents. Presently, a memo is filed which reads as under:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:30726 WP No. 11769 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

“The Petitioner most respectfully submits that subsequent to the filing of the above Writ Petition, certain developments have taken place and the petitioner has been advised to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent authority. In view of the same, the petitioner does not wish to prosecute the above writ petition any further. Wherefore, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above writ petition with liberty to pursue such other remedies as may be available to him in law, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶39

The circumstances why liberty must be reserved is not brought forth. Hence, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn without reserving liberty.

¶40

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶41

AN/-

Sri Anand M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anand M v. the State of Karnataka

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

Rama Reddy Dhasharatha Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Mr Aboobacker Sidheeq P v Vs M/S Thrinity Heart Foundation Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Ashok M v Vs Greater Bengalruu South Corporation

Sri v Muniraju Vs the Commissioner

Mr Iqbal Vs Kthe Chief Commissioner

Sunil Kanaran, Vs the State of Karnataka