Sri. Prathap. S Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri. Prathap. S Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of: liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a response within one week without waiting for a certified copy; Joint Commissioner directed to ensure personal hearing and a reasoned order; no precipitous action until an order under Section 243(3)(c) of the Act; petitioner restrained from further construction until such order. Prayer to quash the Provisional Order (Annexure-F) and consequential notice (Annexure-G) not granted at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner can justify that there was neither inspection nor a joint inspection of the property, or that there is no deviation as stated in the Provisional Order under Section 243(3)(c) of the Act, so as to show cause against the proposed demolition action. +1 more

Court's answer

If the petitioner can justify absence of inspection or joint inspection, or absence of deviation as stated in the Provisional Order, the petitioner still has an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action, especially as a personal hearing is contemplated under Section 243(d) proviso.

Ratio / Principle

The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a response within a week from the date of the order, without waiting for a certified copy thereof.

Key takeaways

The Joint Commissioner is called upon to ensure a personal hearing and a reasoned order as contemplated in law.ratio¶41
There shall be no precipitous action against the petitioner's property until there is an order under Section 243(3)(c) of the Act.ratio¶43
The petitioner is stipulated not to proceed with further construction unless and until such an order under the Act is passed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a Provisional Order dated 30-04-2026, bearing No. JA.AA(BO)/2830/2025-26-2026-27, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Bengaluru South City Corporation (third respondent) under Section 243(3)(c) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 in respect of Site Nos.31 and 32, Muniswara Nagara Layout, Haalukunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru (Annexure-F), along with a consequential notice (Annexure-G). The petitioner contended the Provisional Order was issued without inspection as contemplated under Section 243(2) of the Act and feared demolition. Held: the petitioner retains an opportunity to show cause if he justifies absence of inspection/joint inspection or absence of deviation, particularly given the personal hearing contemplated under Section 243(d) proviso. Petition disposed of reserving liberty to file a response within one week; Joint Commissioner directed to ensure a personal hearing and a reasoned order; no precipitous action until an order under Section 243(3)(c); petitioner not to proceed with further construction until such order. (B M Shyam Prasad, J.)

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28700 WP No. 17625 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 17625 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRATHAP. S S/O SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NOS.31 AND 32, MUNISWARA NAGARA LAYOUT, HAALUKUNTE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560068.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VEERESHA K.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002.

THE BENGALURU SOUTH CITY CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU-560001.

JOINT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH CITY CORPORATION, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE/ZONE-2,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28700 WP No. 17625 of 2026

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560068.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30-04-2026 BEARING NO. JA.AA(BO)/2830/2025-26-2026-27 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 243(3)(C) OF THE GREATER BENGALURU GOVERNANCE ACT, 2024, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BEARING SITE NOS.31 AND 32, MUNISWARA NAGARA LAYOUT, HAALUKUNTE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU 560068, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F; B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICE/COMMUNICATION BEARING NO./2830/202526-2026-27 DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AFTER THE ORDER DATED 30-04-2026, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G, AS THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30-04-2026.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28700 WP No. 17625 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is called in question the

Provisional Order under Section 243(3)(c) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, the Act’ ], and this order is by the third respondent and is dated 30.04.2026 [ Annexure-F ]. Sri Veeresh K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Provisional Order is without inspection as contemplated under Section 243[2] of the Act and there is every likelihood of action being taken for demolition.

Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondent, rightly points out that this is only a Provisional Order and there would be

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28700 WP No. 17625 of 2026

HC-KAR

action to remove the deviations once there is an order under Section 243 (3) (e) of the Act and if the petitioner fails to act according to such order. When queried, the learned counsel is also categorical that the Provisional Order is issued but no action is taken because the petitioner has not filed any reply.

This Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner can justify that there is neither inspection nor a joint inspection of the property, or that there is no deviation in the terms of the Provisional Order, the petitioner still have an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action especially when there must be a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 243(d) proviso.

Hence, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a response within a week from today without waiting for a

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28700 WP No. 17625 of 2026

HC-KAR

certified copy of this order calling upon the Joint Commissioner to ensure that there is personal hearing and a reasoned order as contemplated in law. This Court also directs that there shall not be any precipitous action until there is an order under Section 243(3)(c) of the Act while also stipulating that the petitioner shall not proceed with further construction unless there is an order as aforesaid.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA

List No.: 11 Sl No.: 1