Karnataka High Court
Dr. B. R. Mahendra vs Chief Commissioner Of Bbmp Bangalore on 16 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26295
WP No. 8253 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 8253 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 5106 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
IN WP No. 8253/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. EAGLESIGHT TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
REG. OFFICE AT NO. 22, DK AND JK,
N.S. IYENGAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR
SRI. HOSPALYA LOKESH SUNIL KUMAR
S/O G. LOKESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Digitally signed
REGISTERED COMPANIES ACT, 2013.
by AL BHAGYA ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.KASHINATH J. D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND
APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26295
WP No. 8253 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING WEST, BHASKAR PARK,
SHESHADRIPURA, BENGALURU-560020.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GANDHINAGARA SUB DIVISION,
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
GANDHI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560009.
4. DR. B. MAHENDRA,
S/O LATE BELURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.301/10, 36TH CROSS,
7TH 'C' MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANJEEV B L., ADVOCATE;
SRI.ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 15.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A. FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
IN APPEAL NO. 231/2024 ALLOWING THE IMPLEADING
APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PROPOSED
RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT AS
PER ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL, ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER
ANNEXURE-V AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND SUFFERS FROM
MALAFIDE AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26295
WP No. 8253 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. 5106/2025
BETWEEN:
1. DR. B. R. MAHENDRA,
S/O LATE BELURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO. 301/10, 36TH CROSS, 7 TH MAIN,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
(SENIOR CITYZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF BBMP BANGALORE,
HEGGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD ,
OPP. MAHALAKSHMI PROVISION DEPOT ,
HEGGANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 091.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING WEST,
BHASKAR PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. M/S EAGLESIGHT TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
OFFICE AT NO.22, DK AND JK,
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
N.S. IYENGAR STREET,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26295
WP No. 8253 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
NARAYAN RAVI KUMAR,
S/O SRI NARAYAN T.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
...RESPONDENTS
SRI.SANJEEV B. L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
(VK NOT FILED)
SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO FORTHWITH ALLOW THE APPLICATION
DATED 25.11.2024 FILED IN APPEAL NO.BBMP/231/2024
HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A OR IN THE ALTERNATE
AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The present case reveals a rather disconcerting state of affairs. The attempt by respondent No.4 to contest the demolition proceedings initiated by BBMP officials against the petitioner in W.P. No.8253/2025 is nothing short of an abuse of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR the judicial process. It is precisely such instances that contribute to the alarming rise in frivolous litigation, burdening the judiciary and consuming valuable judicial time, all at the behest of a few interested individuals acting with mala fide intent.
2. In W.P. No.8253/2025, the petitioner has called in question the demolition order issued by the competent authority under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru MahanagaraPalike Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BBMP Act'). The said appeal is currently pending adjudication before respondent No.1, the Appellate Authority under the Act. While the said appeal is pending, respondent No.4 has filed an application seeking to come on record and contest the demolition proceedings. This application has been strongly opposed by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.4 has no semblance of right, title, or interest in the subject property and is actuated purely by personal vendetta against the petitioner's company. It is further contended that respondent No.4 has initiated multiple vexatious litigations and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR is not a necessary or proper party in the pending statutory appeal filed under Section 253 of the BBMP Act.
3. Notwithstanding the detailed objections raised by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has proceeded to allow the impleading application, primarily on the ground that the documents relied upon by respondent No.4 are purported to have a bearing on the matter in issue. Consequently, the impleading application was allowed and respondent No.4 has been permitted to come on record in the appeal.
4. In this backdrop, W.P. No.5106/2025 filed by respondent No.4 - the impleading applicant seeking a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider his impleading application, has now been rendered infructuous. However, this Court is of the considered view that W.P. No.5106/2025 deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs, having regard to the abuse of process and the frivolous nature of the litigation resorted to by respondent No.4.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. This Court also deems it appropriate to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.231/2024, whereby the impleading application was allowed. While it is trite that in cases of unauthorised construction or construction in violation of sanctioned plans, the adjoining owner or complainant may, in appropriate cases, be treated as a necessary party, the case at hand presents a classic example of misuse of the judicial process. Respondent No.4, far from being a bona fide adjoining owner or complainant, appears to be driven by ulterior motives, and his intervention in the pending appeal lacks any legal foundation.
6. The records clearly disclose that several litigations are pending between the petitioner's company and respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 seeks to contest the statutory appeal pending before the Appellate Authority on the allegation that the authorities are colluding with the petitioner's company, and that due to extraneous considerations, the gross deviations committed during construction are being overlooked. On this basis, respondent No.4 claims to be a necessary party to the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR appeal and asserts that without his participation, the issue of unauthorized construction cannot be effectively adjudicated. However, proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020, concerning unauthorised or deviated construction, are not adversarial in nature. Only in cases where a complainant is an adjoining owner or otherwise directly affected by the impugned construction can such a party be treated as necessary. In the absence of such a direct and substantial interest, the inclusion of third parties would only serve to derail the limited scope of statutory enquiry contemplated under the Act.
Before this court proceeds further, it is absolutely necessary to cull out the relevant portion of the affidavit filed in support of the impleading application to ascertain whether the impleading applicant has right, title or interest in the property in question., the same reads as under:h "6. This Hon'ble Authority has been literally kept in dark by the Appellant by stating that these orders under Section 248 BBMP Act, are pass behind the back of the Appellant which is contradictory in nature. As the Appellant himself in his Appeal Petition at Para.no.6 admits that, the respondents 1 & 2 visited the spot for initiating a legal action Under Section 248(1) BBMP, Act, -9- NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR 2020. Such being the case, he cannot take up a contention that, he is not served with the Notices and all those baseless remarks on the Respondent. Nos 1 and 2.
7] To prove that the Appellant has not approached this Authority Under Section 253 BBMP, Act, 2020 With Clean Hands, by looking to the Reasoning given in the Supporting Affidavit of the Appellant for the Interlocutory Application filed Under Section-5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to this Authority to Condone the Delay of 74 days, no where it is stated by the Appellant that he had approached the Hon'ble City Civil Court with a Suit for Injunctory Relief against the Order dated 12/1/2023 passed by Respondent No.1 wherein he had requested the Hon'ble City Civil Court with a perpetual injunction restraining Your Authority and your agents, men or anybody under or through it from demolishing and damaging the Commercial and Hostel Building constructed over the suit schedule property (which is the same property involved in the above appeal) and further restrain Your Authority (as Your Authority is the sole Defendant in the above Original Suit), not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
This Original Suit. No.2890/2023 filed by the Appellant on 24/4/2023 and this matter was filed against Your Authority the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, Bangalore as Defendant and the Case was posted before Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-28).
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR On 25/4/2023, the Learned vacation City Civil Judge, XIV ACC & SJ, Bangalore passed an Interlocutory Interim Order under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC r/w Section 151 C.P.C. in which it directed the Defendant (The Chief Commissioner BBMP, Bangalore) and restrained the Authority with an Order of Temporary Injunctions followed by Conditions:-
In which Condition. No. 1 reads as follows:-
"The Defendant is at liberty to proceed against the Plaintiff as per law for demolishing the Commercial and Hostel building if constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan or any rules or without obtaining the licence and approved Plan".
Condition. No.2 reads as follows:-
"The Defendant is also at liberty to proceed with the demolition of the Commercial and Hostel building if already the action under the BBMP Act is initiated against the plaintiff by following the Procedure under the BBMP Act or the KMC Act and rules".
It is submitted by me in this Affidavit that, When the Appellant received an order and read these two conditions of the Order, as stated above, He was rest assured and confident that his building was with full deviations and violations and this First condition of the Temporary Injunction Order empowered the hands of Your Authority i.e. BBMP in going on a demolition drive of the appellant Property.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR The immediate reaction of the Appellant was that, he advanced the above Original Suit from 29/5/2023 to 26/4/2023 i.e. immediately the next date after the City Civil Court passing the Temporary Injunction Order with such condition and he immediately withdrew the Suit for Permanent Injunction what the Appellant had filed before the City Civil Court.
(Copy of the Certified Copy of the ENTIRE COURT ORDER SHEET IN O.S.No.2890/2023 along with Suit Petition and two Interlocutory Applications I.A.No.I & II and temporary Injunction Order DATED 25/4/2023 and Also Application Under Section 151 C.P.C. and Affidavit dated 26/4/2023 in which they withdrew the said Suit without complying the order of temporary Injunction Granted by the Court on 25/4/2023. This malicious Act of the Appellant in not getting a relief to his requirement and seeking a withdrawal Order of the suit petition filed by him in O.S.No.2890/2023 WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF YOUR AUTHORITY IN THE ENITIRE APPEAL PETITION and THIS AMOUNTS TO SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS BEING COMMITTED WITH A DELIBERATE INTENTION ΤΟ ΟΒΤΑΙΝ Α RELIEF FROM YOUR AUTHORITY BY FILING APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE B.B.М.Р.АСТ, 2020."
7. On reading the aforesaid paragraphs of the affidavit this court is more than satisfied that, respondent No.4 neither
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR has any right, title, or interest in the property in question, nor is he an adjoining owner. He is admittedly an adversarial litigant, having initiated multiple proceedings against the petitioner's company in various fora. The contention that, pursuant to his complaint, an enquiry was initiated by the Lokayukta and subsequently by the BBMP under Section 248 of the Act, does not confer upon him the right to participate in the appeal proceedings. Once an enquiry is initiated under the statute, the role of the complainant, if any, is limited to triggering administrative action; such complainant cannot be allowed to convert the statutory proceedings into a personal vendetta. Permitting such adversarial elements to intervene in the appellate proceedings would amount to unnecessarily expanding the scope of enquiry under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, which is confined to examining the legality and propriety of the demolition order based on official records and approved plans.
8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Appellate Authority has not properly applied its mind. The impleading application has been allowed on the vague
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR assumption that certain documents produced by respondent No.4 may shed light on the nature of the construction undertaken by the petitioner. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The documents relied upon by respondent No.4 pertain to unrelated disputes pending before other forums and are wholly irrelevant to the statutory appeal under Section 253 of the Act. The Appellate Authority is already in possession of the approved building plan, the license, the spot inspection report, the provisional order under Section 241(1) and (2), and the petitioner's objections. The burden rests squarely on the petitioner to establish that the construction is in conformity with the sanctioned plan, setback requirements, and zoning regulations. The presence of respondent No.4 is wholly unnecessary for a proper adjudication. The order allowing the impleading application suffers from non-application of mind and is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, it is liable to be quashed.
9. Imposition of exemplary costs in the present case is warranted to discourage abuse of judicial process and to uphold the sanctity of statutory proceedings. Respondent No.4, despite having no legal interest in the subject property and being
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR engaged in multiple litigations against the petitioner's company, sought to interfere in a statutory appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020, purely on extraneous and vindictive considerations. His conduct in filing W.P. No.5106/2025, seeking directions to expedite his impleading application despite the lack of any locus standi has unnecessarily burdened the docket of this Court. Such frivolous and vexatious litigation, driven by personal animosity, consumes valuable judicial time and resources that could otherwise be devoted to genuine and meritorious matters. Therefore, this Court deems it just and necessary to impose costs to send a clear message that the forum of writ jurisdiction cannot be misused for collateral purposes.
ORDER i. Writ Petition No.8253/2025 is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 15.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the impleading application filed by respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside.
iii. Writ Petition No.5106/2025 is dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26295 WP No. 8253 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5106 of 2025 HC-KAR Lakh only), payable to the Advocates' Clerks Welfare Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
iv. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.5106/2025 shall report compliance before the Registry within one week thereafter.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6