Karnataka High Court
Sri. R. Vinodh Babu vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 14 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25976
WP No. 17113 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 17113 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. R. VINODH BABU
S/O N. RAMAMURTHY NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. SMT. N. BABITHA
W/O R. VINODH BABU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
BOTH RE R/AT FLAT NO.9,
NRN RESIDENCY, NO. 10/2, 9TH CROSS,
'B' STREET, KAMAKYA LAYOUT,
BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by (BY SMT. YAMINI MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
NAGARAJA B M
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CORPORATION CIRCLE, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE ZONAL OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
IDEAL HOMES, 18TH CROSS,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25976
WP No. 17113 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF TOWN COUNTRY PLANNING,
10TH CROSS ROAD, A BLOCK,
E BLOCK, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 055.
4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
REMCO BHEL LAYOUT, KENCHENHALLI,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
5. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BEML LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
6. REVENUE INSPECTOR,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BEML COMPLEX, NEAR MANGO THOP,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DATED 07.02.2025 BEARING NOTICE NO.
V.R/R.R.NO./P.O/93/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE R-2 i.e. THE
ZONAL OFFICER, BBMP UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF THE BBMP
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25976
WP No. 17113 of 2025
HC-KAR
FOR STOPPING THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS ANNEXED AS
ANNX-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners in the present writ petition have assailed the provisional order dated 07.02.2025, issued under Section 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Act, 2020, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. The said provisional order directs the petitioners to show cause as to why the construction undertaken on their property should not be proceeded against for alleged unauthorized deviation.
2. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned provisional order has been issued despite the fact that the construction carried out by them is in strict conformity with the sanctioned building plan and the building license issued by the competent authority. It is -4- NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025 HC-KAR further contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act was prompted solely at the behest of a third party, who is stated to be a Right to Information (RTI) activist, and not based on any independent inspection or assessment by the BBMP.
3. Taking note of the above contentions, this Court, by order dated 25.06.2025, directed the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP, Sri. Pawan Kumar, to secure instructions and verify the veracity of the statement made on oath by the petitioners to the effect that there is no deviation from the approved plan. On the subsequent date of hearing, learned counsel for the BBMP was unable to demonstrate or substantiate that the construction in question was in contravention of the applicable setback norms or any other statutory requirement under the building bye-laws.
4. Be that as it may, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the provisional order primarily on -5- NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025 HC-KAR the ground that there is absolutely no deviation from the sanctioned plan. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners ought to be given an adequate opportunity to place on record their detailed objections to the said provisional order. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation, along with all relevant documents, explaining and substantiating their stand that the construction is in accordance with law.
5. If such objections and supporting material are submitted within the time prescribed under the Act, respondent No.2 shall duly consider the same in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 is further directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, after affording due opportunity to the petitioners and by strictly adhering to the procedural safeguards and substantive mandate contemplated under the said provision.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. With these observations, this Court passes the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition stands disposed of. ii. The petitioners are granted liberty to submit a detailed objection and explanation in response to the provisional order issued under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020. Along with their objections, the petitioners may also furnish all relevant and supporting documents to substantiate their stand. iii. Such objections and documents shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
iv. Upon receipt of the objections, respondent No.2 shall conduct a proper enquiry by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate -7- NC: 2025:KHC:25976 WP No. 17113 of 2025 HC-KAR orders in accordance with law, strictly in terms of the mandate under Section 248(3) of the Act.
v. Until the conclusion of the aforesaid enquiry, the petitioners shall be permitted to continue with the construction activities, if any, strictly at their own risk and responsibility. vi. It is, however, made clear that any construction carried out by the petitioners pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 248(1) and (2) of the BBMP Act, 2020, shall be subject to the outcome of the final decision by respondent No.2.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK