Dismissed¶31

M/S Sai Sumukha Properties v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2026WP/5014/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition on ground of alternative efficacious remedy; statutory appeals under Section 250 of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 pending before Chief Commissioner, GBA; BBMP provisional order under Section 248(1) of B.B.M.P Act dated 17.09.2024; direction against coercive action pending appellate decision; Articles 226 & 227 certiorari; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; WP No. 5014 of 2026 (LB-BMP); Justice M.I.ARUN; Sai Sumukha Properties v. Chief Commissioner GBA; construction-related municipal orders; interim protection from coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground of alternative efficacious remedy already availed; respondents directed not to initiate coercive action against the petitioner till respondent no.1 decides the pending appeals; pending I.As disposed of. ¶31

M/S Sai Sumukha Properties Vs the Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner can maintain the writ petition against the BBMP/GBA orders when the same orders are also under challenge in appeals under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 pending before the Chief Commissioner.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy (appeals under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024) and had availed of it, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶31

Key takeaways

Respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner till an appropriate decision is taken by respondent no.1 (Chief Commissioner) in the appeals pending before it.ratio¶31
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certiorari to quash a provisional order dated 17.09.2024 (No.A.E.E./GA/PO/02/24-25) under Section 248(1) of the B.B.M.P Act issued by respondent no.3; the petition challenged two provisional orders and one confirmation order of BBMP/Greater Bengaluru Authority against the petitioner's construction. On respondents' counsel pointing out that the same impugned orders were challenged in appeals under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (Appeal nos.11/2026, 17/2026 and 18/2026) pending before the Chief Commissioner (respondent no.1), the Court held the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy which he had availed, and dismissed the petition. However, respondents were directed not to initiate coercive action against the petitioner till an appropriate decision was taken by respondent no.1 in the pending appeals. Pending I.As. stood disposed of. (M.I. Arun, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:17823 WP No. 5014 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 5014 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

M/S SAI SUMUKHA PROPERTIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS REGISTRATION DISTRICT OFFICE AT NO. 37, TELECOM LAYOUT TIMBER LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560 026. REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI. L.K.MANI S/O LATE L.KRISHNAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.1414, "SRITA" TWENTY THIRD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI SECOND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:17823 WP No. 5014 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BANGALORE-560 002.

¶19

ZONAL COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGARA ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARAPALIKE BANGALORE-560 040.

¶20

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GALI ANJANEYASWAMI TEMPLE SUB - DIVISION, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT 3^RD MAIN ROAD, BEHIND KAILASHESHWARA TEMPLE ATTIGUPPE, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 17.09.2024 BEARING NO.A.E.E./GA/PO/02/24-25 UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF B.B.M.P ACT, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17823 WP No. 5014 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The present writ petition is filed challenging two provisional orders and one confirmation order passed by respondents-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)/Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) against the construction put up by the petitioner.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents-BBMP/GBA submits that the same impugned orders are challenged by filing appeals under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 and Appeal nos.11/2026, 17/2026 and 18/2026 are pending before the Chief Commissioner (respondent no.1).

¶31

As the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy and he has also availed the same, the petition stands dismissed . However, respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner till an appropriate decision is taken by

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:17823 WP No. 5014 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

respondent no.1 in the appeals said to be pending before

¶36

it.

¶37

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

¶38