Disposed¶41

Sri. Srinivasalu. P. G. v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/21037/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BBMP Health Inspector closure order; non-residential / commercial activities; property conversion; trade license; Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Bengaluru South Zone; Articles 226 & 227 Constitution of India; Writ Petition No. 21037 of 2025 (LB-BMP); disposed of on BBMP undertaking to consider representation in accordance with law; Justice M.I. Arun; decision dated 15.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the statement of counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5: if the petitioner makes a representation for conversion of the property for non-residential purposes and for permission to carry on commercial activities including trade licenses, BBMP will consider it in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders; pending I.As. disposed of. ¶41

Sri. Srinivasalu. P. G. Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent no.5 directing the petitioner to close the non-residential activities on the premises ought to be quashed.

¶29

Court's answer

The Annexure-A order issued by respondent no.5 directing closure of the non-residential activities was issued in accordance with law and no fault can be attributed to respondent no.5.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 submitted, upon instructions, that if the petitioner makes a representation for conversion of the property for non-residential purposes and thereafter for permission to carry on commercial activities including issuance of trade licenses, the same would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders passed; the Court accepted this course.

¶39

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 as referred to in paragraph no.3 of the order; pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.I. Arun, J.), in W.P. No. 21037 of 2025 (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India: the petitioner challenged the order dated 10.07.2025 (No.AA.Y (BEN DHA)/P.R/130/25-26, Annexure-A) issued by respondent no.5, Health Inspector, BBMP, directing him to close the non-residential activities conducted on the premises. The Court observed that the order was issued in accordance with law and no fault could be attributed to respondent no.5. On submissions that the petitioner was not carrying out the activities in majority of the premises and sought liberty to continue non-residential activity in a portion after obtaining conversion and permissions, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 stated that any representation for conversion of the property and for permission to carry on commercial activities including issuance of trade licenses would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders passed. The writ petition was disposed of in those terms and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20300 WP No. 21037 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 21037 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SRINIVASALU P.G. S/O P.M.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT MATHRUSHREE RESIDENCY PROPERTY NO.22, 3^RD FLOOR THURAHALLI MAIN ROAD VEERANJANEYA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 061.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER

¶14

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶15

N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶16

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

¶17

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE 8, 9^TH CROSS RD, 2^ND BLOCK JAYA NAGAR EAST, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011.

¶18

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:20300 WP No. 21037 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

9^TH CROSS, 9^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE, WARD NO.184 BENGALURU-560 061.

¶24

THE HEALTH INSPECTOR BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE, 1^ST MAIN ROAD ROYAL COUNTY PARK, J.P.NAGAR 8^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 083.

¶25

SUDHA SAVANUR

¶26

W/O VIJAY SAVANUR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.90, MRUTHIKA 4^TH MAIN ROAD, HILL VIEW GARDEN THURAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 061.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. DILIP KUMAR I.S., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶29

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2025 BEARING IN NO.AA.Y (BEN DHA)/P.R/130/25-26 BY RESPONDENT NO.5 (HEALTH INSPECTOR) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20300 WP No. 21037 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

An order at Annexure-A to the writ petition is issued by respondent no.5 to the petitioner directing him to close the non-residential activities being conducted on the premises which is the subject matter of the writ petition. It is seen that the said order is issued in accordance with law and no fault can be attributed to respondent no.5 in this regard. Aggrieved by the action of respondent no.5, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the said order.

¶36

However, in the course of the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not carrying out the activities in majority of the premises to which the impugned order is made applicable. However, it is further submitted that after obtaining the necessary conversion order and after obtaining the necessary permissions, he may be permitted to continue non-residential activities in accordance to the law in a portion of the writ petition schedule property.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20300 WP No. 21037 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 upon instructions submits that, if the petitioner were to make a necessary representation for conversion of the property for non-residential purposes and thereafter for permission to carry on commercial activities including issuance of trade licenses, the same would to be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the same.

¶41

Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 as referred to in paragraph no.3 supra.

¶42

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶44

PGG

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri. Srinivasalu. P. G. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Srinivasalu. P. G. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K R Venkatachala Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. K Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Rudramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Manjula Vs Shri. Arul Moli

Sri Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Anitha Vs State of Karnataka