Dismissed¶44

Mr. Preetham Tambe v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/33178/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 33178 of 2025 (LB-BMP), Karnataka HC, 04-02-2026, Suraj Govindaraj J. Locus standi of a stranger/third party to file writ petition alleging unauthorised construction; petitioner non-resident lawyer from Thane; mandamus sought on representations dated 19.09.2025 and 04.10.2025 under BBMP Act, 2020 and Building Bye-Laws, 2003; no private lis; observations on extortion-motivated construction petitions; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, a lawyer practising in Bengaluru, Bombay and residing in Thane who stays with a family friend when in Bengaluru, is neither a neighbour nor a person residing in and around the area who can be said to be aggrieved by the alleged unauthorised construction. ¶42

Mr. Preetham Tambe Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking mandamus to the BBMP authorities to act on the petitioner's representations and remove alleged unauthorised construction at Property No. 38/2, St. John's Road, Ulsoor, is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, who is neither a neighbour nor a resident of the area aggrieved by the construction.

¶42

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

There is no private lis involved in the present matter, despite which the petition was filed as a private lis; on that view the petition was dismissed.

¶43

Key takeaways

Observation that the filing of petitions by third parties in respect of constructions is not a stray occurrence, and that several such matters coming before the Court appear to be attempts of extortion or ex-facie filed for other than bona fide reasons.obiter¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Suraj Govindaraj J.) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by a Thane-based advocate seeking a writ of mandamus directing BBMP authorities (Respondent Nos. 2 to 5) to consider his representations dated 04.10.2025 and 19.09.2025 and remove alleged illegal and unauthorised construction in Property No. 38/2, St. John's Road, Ulsoor, Ward No. 90, Bengaluru, belonging to Respondent No. 6. Held: the petitioner is neither a neighbour nor a person residing in and around the area who can be said to be aggrieved by the construction; there is no private lis involved, yet the petition was filed as a private lis. The Court observed that third-party petitions concerning constructions are not stray occurrences and several appear to be attempts of extortion or ex-facie non-bona fide. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6707 WP No. 33178 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 33178 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. PREETHAM TAMBE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OLD KIA 2502. 25^TH FLOOR, TOWER-10 (NYX) RUNWAL EIRENE, BEHIND RENEWAL GARDEN CITY BALKUM NAKA, THANE. MAHARASHTRA-400608

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. RAMYASHREE M.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560002

¶17

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER-CENTRAL ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE LG-34, BENGALURU-560003

¶18

ADDITIONAL TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY BBMP, M. G.ROAD. BANGALORE-560001

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-56008

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6707 WP No. 33178 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

MR. RISHI SADASIVAN S/O SADASIVAN, MAJOR R/A 38/2, ST. JOHN'S ROAD, BANGALORE-560042

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. BATHE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. P.B. RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 5 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.10.2025 (PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-F) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 READ WITH THE BUILDING BYE-LAWS, 2003, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE SAID AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION PUT UP IN PROPERTY NO.38/2, ST. JOHNS ROAD, ULSOOR, WARD NO. 90, BENGALURU, IF ANY AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 has filed inspection report.

¶29

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶30

a) “ Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents no. 2 to 5 consider and take appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 04.10.2025 (produced herewith at Annexure-F) in accordance with the provisions of the BBMP Act,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:6707 WP No. 33178 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

2020 read with the Building Bye-Laws, 2003, and consequently direct the said authority to remove the illegal and unauthorised construction put up in Property No. #38/2, St. John’s Road, Ulsoor, Ward No.90 Bengaluru, if any;

¶35

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider and take appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 19.09.2025 (produced herewith as Annexure-E) in accordance with the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020 and consequently direct the said authority to remove the illegal and unauthorised construction put up in Property No. 38/2, St. John’s Road, Ulsoor, Ward No.90, Bengaluru if any;

¶36

(c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order for costs of the present Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

A perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner claims to be a lawyer by profession who practices before this Court and before the High Court of Bombay and he is residing in Thane, Maharashtra. When he comes to Bengaluru, he stays with a family friend, who lives in a residential property at St. Johns Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore.

¶38

It is in that background that alleging that respondent No.6 is carrying on unauthorized illegal construction

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:6707 WP No. 33178 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

has filed the above petition. The petitioner is neither a neighbour nor a person who resides in and around the area who can be said to be aggrieved by any such construction.

¶43

There is no private lis which is involved in the present matter. Despite which the above petition has been filed as a private lis, this is not a stray occurrence. There are several matters which are coming up before this Court where third parties file petitions in respect of constructions which are clearly now attempt of extortion or ex-facie filed for other than bona fide reasons.

¶44

In that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed .

¶45

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Mr. Preetham Tambe v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Preetham Tambe v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mis Anoosha K R Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt. v Hamsa Veni Vs the Commissioner

Sri P Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

N Nagaraju Vs the Commissioner

Iifl Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. K. Nagamma Vs the Commissioner