Mr Venkatesh C R Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr Venkatesh C R Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks with the second respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order; the second respondent directed to consider the response, pass just orders, and desist from taking precipitous action until then.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's mill is situated within a residential area or in a mixed locality where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted (contention urged by the petitioner's counsel). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's grievance would be addressed if the petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed response to the impugned notices, with the second respondent directed to consider the same before deciding on any coercive measure and to desist from taking precipitous action until then.

Key takeaways

The Court observed that the impugned action is only a notice allowing the petitioner seven days' time; the notice was issued in December 2025 and no action has been taken so far even according to the petitioner.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru (single judge, B M Shyam Prasad J.), writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the proprietor of a micro mill (M/s.Mallikarjuna Engineering) challenging a show-cause notice dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure-A; No. BBMP/AVAI.KEM.V/PR/193/2025-26) issued by the Health Officer, Kengeri Division, Rajarajeshwari Nagara Zone, BBMP, calling upon him to show cause against relocation of the mill from a residential locality, with an indication of possible disruption of electricity supply. Counsel for the petitioner contended the locality is a mixed one where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted. The Court noted the impugned action was only a notice with seven days' time, issued in December 2025, with no action taken since even according to the petitioner. Petition allowed-in-part: petitioner granted liberty to file a detailed response within three weeks without waiting for a certified copy; second respondent directed to consider it, pass just orders, and desist from precipitous/coercive action until then. Decision dated 04-06-2026.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 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. 16155 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

MR VENKATESH C R S/O MR.RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.MALLIKARJUNA ENGINEERING, HAVING SHED NO. 10, 4^TH CROSS RAMESHWARANAGAR, SAIBABANAGAR, NEAR ANUPAMACOLLEGE, 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-560 060.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION, OFFICE OF MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER KENGERI DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE-01, BANGALORE-560 0 60.

THE HEALTH OFFICER, GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION KENGERI DIVISION, BANGALORE-560060.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., 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:

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

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026

HC-KAR

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 this notice 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 impugned action is only a notice and it allows the

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026

HC-KAR

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 notices 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:26462 WP No. 16155 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr