Dr P v Arvind Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Dr P v Arvind Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw granted; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; Respondent No.2 directed not to take any disciplinary action against the petitioners for having filed the petition; pending interlocutory applications, if any, dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.1 (Bangalore Development Authority) should be directed not to permit Respondent No.2 (Vijayanagara Club) to put up construction of the proposed multi-level car parking (MLCP) or any other permanent construction on the schedule property (framed by the prayer clause; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn).

Ratio / Principle

On the memo filed by learned counsel for the petitioners seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition, the memo was taken on record and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2 shall not take any disciplinary action against the petitioners for having filed the petition.ratio¶29
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand dismissed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 1248 of 2026 (BDA), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, oral order dated 25 June 2026 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Nataraj). Petitioners Dr. P.V. Arvind and Mr. KPC Swamy, filing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for a direction to Respondent No.1, Bangalore Development Authority, not to permit Respondent No.2, Vijayanagara Club (a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960), to put up the proposed multi-level car parking (MLCP) or any other permanent construction on the schedule property. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition; the Court took the memo on record and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court additionally directed that Respondent No.2 shall not take any disciplinary action against the petitioners for having filed the petition, and held that pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand dismissed. The merits of the construction dispute were not adjudicated.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:31896 WP No. 1248 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2026 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

DR. P.V. ARVIND SON OF LATE B.S. VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.147, 18^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, MC LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 040.

MR. KPC SWAMY SON OF LATE K.C. PUTTA NARASIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NEAR VIJAYNAGAR CLUB, VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 020.

VIJAYANAGARA CLUB A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 NO.1-4, 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH 'A' CROSS, HAKKA ROAD, HAMPINAGARA, VIJAYNAGARA 2^ND STAGE,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31896 WP No. 1248 of 2026

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE, PRESIDENT SECRETARY

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. G.A.K. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (BDA) NOT TO PERMIT THE RESPONDENT NO.2-SOCIETY TO PUT UP CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED MULTI-LEVEL CAR PARKING (MLCP) OR ANY OTHER PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION ON SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo

seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.

The memo is taken on record. In view of the memo, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

The respondent No.2 shall not take any disciplinary action against the petitioners for having filed the petition.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31896 WP No. 1248 of 2026

HC-KAR

In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and the same stand dismissed.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

HJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14