Mr T Rangaswamy Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr T Rangaswamy Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed-in-part: petitioner granted liberty to file a detailed response to the impugned notice with the second respondent within three weeks, without waiting for a certified copy of the order; the second respondent (Health Officer) directed to consider that response and pass just orders, and to desist from taking precipitous (coercive) action until then.

Issue for consideration

Is the petitioner's mill situated within a residential locality as assumed by the second respondent, or within a mixed-location area where industrial/commercial activities are permissible? +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance would be addressed by granting him liberty to file a detailed response to the impugned notice, calling upon the second respondent to consider that response before deciding on any coercive measure and to desist from taking precipitous action until then; the Court thereby deferred, rather than adjudicated, the residential-versus-mixed-location question raised in Issue 1.

Key takeaways

Operative directions: the petitioner was reserved liberty to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks (without waiting for a certified copy) with the second respondent; the second respondent was directed to consider the same, pass just orders, and desist from taking precipitous action until then.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), Oral Order by B M Shyam Prasad, J. — WP No. 16154 of 2026 (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 — T Rangaswamy, proprietor of a micro mill, v. Commissioner, Greater Bangalore Authority, Bangalore West City Corporation Zone 01, and Health Officers (BBMP). Challenged: show-cause/relocation notice dated 05.12.2025, No. BBMP/AVAI. KEM. V/PR/193/2025-26 (Annexure-A) issued by the second respondent Health Officer, Kengeri Division, Rajarajeshwari Nagara Zone, contemplating possible disruption of electricity supply. Counsel for petitioner contended the locality is a mixed location where industrial/commercial activities are permissible. The Court did not adjudicate that locational question; it allowed the petition in part, granting three weeks to file a detailed response with the second respondent, who was directed to consider it and pass just orders, desisting from precipitous action meanwhile. At the hearing, no coercive action had been taken even per the petitioner.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26461 WP No. 16154 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 16154 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

MR T RANGASWAMY

S/O MR.THIRUMALA SHETTY M.V, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S. HEMANTH ENGINEERING, HAVING SHED NO.24, 4^TH CROSS, RAMESHWARA NAGAR, SAIBABA NAGAR, NEAR ANUPAMA COLLEGE, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 091.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B KESHAVA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER

GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION ZONE 01, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26461 WP No. 16154 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE HEALTH OFFICER BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION, OFFICE OF MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER KENGERI DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE-01, BANGALORE-5600 60.

THE HEALTH OFFICER

GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION KENGERI DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 060.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMA., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 05.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 HEALTH OFFICER KENGERI DIVISION RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA ZONE, BBMP BANGALORE IN NO. BBMP/AVAI. KEM. V/PR/193/2025-26 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW THIS WP.

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

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26461 WP No. 16154 of 2026

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, a proprietor of a Micro Mill, is aggrieved by the notice issued by the second respondent which is produced as Annexure-A. The second respondent has issued these notices calling upon the petitioner to show cause against a direction to relocate the mill from a residential locality lest there be measures for disruption of electricity supply.

Sri B.Keshava Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent has fallen in error in assuming that the petitioner's mill is within a residential area when it is indisputable that the area is a mixed location where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted.

Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances. The

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26461 WP No. 16154 of 2026

HC-KAR

impugned action is only a notice and it allows the petitioner seven days’ time but the notice is in the month of December 2025 and no action is taken so far even according to the petitioner.

This Court is of the view that the petitioner's grievance would be addressed if the petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed response to the impugned notice calling upon the second respondent to consider the same before deciding on any coercive measure and to desist from taking precipitous action until then. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed-in-part

reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks from today without even waiting for a certified copy of this order with the second respondent, directing the second

respondent to consider the same and pass

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26461 WP No. 16154 of 2026

HC-KAR

just orders and to desist from taking precipitous action until then.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr