Sri. P. Babulal v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/9232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 9232 of 2022 (LB-BMP); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; decided 07-01-2026; Suraj Govindaraj J.; petitioners Sri. P. Babulal and Smt Kamala Devi v. Chief Commissioner, BBMP and Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP Vijayanagar Sub Division; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; certiorari; Section 248 Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020; show cause notice dated 18-02-2022 (Annexure-B); confirmation order dated 22-02-2022 (Annexure-C); orders dated 19-04-2022 (Annexure-F) and 20-04-2022 (Annexure-G); memo dated 07.01.2026; dismissed as withdrawn; pending applications disposed; no merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

None on merits; petition dismissed as withdrawn upon counsel's memo dated 07.01.2026; pending applications disposed. ¶40-41

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:817 WP No. 9232 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 9232 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. P. BABULAL LATE PUNARAM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶11

SMT KAMALA DEVI W/O P BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.27, BINNY LAYOUT, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, CLUB ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560140

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SANTOSH RAJ URS, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, VIJAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION, M L A BHAVANA, 2^ND FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560140

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:817 WP No. 9232 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

(BY SRI. SATYANAND B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DTD 22.02.2022 PASSED BY R2 AS PER ANNEXURE-C, THE ORDER DTD 19.04.2022 PASSED BY R1 ON THE LETTER OF R2 DTD 19.04.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND THE LETTER/NOTICE DTD 20.04.2022 ISSUED BY R2 AS PER ANNEXUREG AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶29

following reliefs;

¶30

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the confirmation order dated 22-02-2022 passed by respondent No.2 in No. SA.KA.A/V.U.V/PR/CO/03/21-22 as per AnnexureC; the order dated 19-04-2022 passed by respondent No.1 on the letter of respondent No.2 dated 19-04-2022 as per Annexure-F and the letter/notice dated 20-04-2022 issued by respondent No.2 in No. SA.KA.A/V.U.V/PR/44/2223 as per Annexure-G;

¶31

b) Declare that the initiation of the proceedings by respondent No.2 invoking the power under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 as show cause notice in No. SA.KA.A/V.U.V/PO/03/21-22 dated 18-02-2022 per Annexure-B is void and without an authority of law;

¶32

c) Pass any appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem it fit and proper in the

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:817 WP No. 9232 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

facts and circumstances of the case and allow this Writ Petition with costs, in the ends of justice and equity.

¶36

A memo dated 07.01.2026 signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been filed, which reads

¶37

as under:

¶38

“ MEMO

¶39

The counsel for the petitioners most respectfully pray that this Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the above petition as withdrawn. Hence, this memo and the same may kindly be taken on records in the ends of Justice and equity.”

¶40

Accepting the said memo and submission of learned

¶41

counsel for the Petitioners, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶42

In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration. Hence, the same are disposed.

¶43

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶44

KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri. P. Babulal v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. P. Babulal v. the Chief 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

Sri.a.S.Ganesh Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt K R Manjula Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Janaki Billava Vs the State of Karnataka

S R Pandurangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K K Aiyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanappa Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner