Sri K Halesh Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2025 PASSED BY THE R1 IN APPEAL NO.18/2025 VIDE ANNX-A.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:31666 WP No. 17010 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioners assert that their neighbour [ the fourth respondent ] has completed construction contrary to the Sanctioned Plan and that the complaint filed by them has resulted in the Confirmation Order under Section 248[3] of the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ‘the BBMP Act’ ]. The petitioner's grievance is with the Chief Commissioner's Order dated 09.12.2025 in Appeal No.18/2025 [Annexure-A] under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. The Chief Commissioner, by this impugned Order, has restored the proceedings for reconsideration expressly stipulating that the fourth respondent shall not begin reconstruction or carry out any construction until the conclusion in the remanded proceedings.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:31666 WP No. 17010 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Sri Bharath B Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because the Chief Commissioner's Order is notwithstanding this Court's order dated 13.01.2025 in the petition in W.P. No.20054/2024. The learned counsel also submits that the Chief Commissioner has intervened to restore the proceedings although the appeal is filed beyond the thirty days’ limitation provided under the BBMP Act. Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondents and its officers, is heard for the disposal of the petition.

¶41

The petitioners do not even aver that this Court's Order dated 13.01.2025 in W.P. No.20054/2024 hinders the fourth respondent’s appellate remedy or that the Chief Commissioner has exercised the appellate jurisdiction without examining the application filed for condonation of delay. In these circumstances, and because the fourth respondent’s specific case is that the

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:31666 WP No. 17010 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

proceedings are concluded without due notice and the Chief Commissioner has stipulated that the fourth respondent shall not undertake any further construction during the pendency of the proceedings, this Court is of the definite opinion that there is no cause for interference except to dispose of the petition calling upon the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer [ the second respondent ] to file a Report with the Authority who must exercise powers under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 for early disposal of the remanded proceedings in law. Hence the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, without conferring a locus, to file a certified copy of this Order with the second respondent within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order calling upon the second respondent to ensure that a Report is filed for

¶48