Karnataka High Court
Sri T Prakash vs The Commissioner on 10 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52328
WP No. 20010 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 20010 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI.T.PRAKASH
S/O SRI.K.THIMMAISH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.70(3/1),
3RD MAIN ROAD,
VIDYAPEETHA, BSK 3RD STAGE,
SRINIVASA NAGARA, BANGALORE-500085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIGHNESHWARA SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
SRI.MAYANNA GOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CORPORATION BUILDING,
N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.
Digitally signed
by
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER (SOUTH)
Location: HIGH COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BBMP,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 9TH CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560011.
3. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V)
S15 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT.GIRIJA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52328
WP No. 20010 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER
SECTION 356(1) OF BBMP ACT, 2020 DATED 03.04.2025 AS PER
ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.ªÀ.D(zÀ)/¹Ü.D/¦.Dgï/01/2025-26 dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 356(1) of the Bruhat Bengauru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'the BBMP Act, 2020') (Annexure-E). He has also challenged an order bearing No.¸ÀPÁEA(«)/J¸ï15/¸À.EA(«)(vÁA)/2024-25/386-88 dated 26.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure- F).
2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of a property bearing No.70, New No.70(3/1), PID No.54-55-70, 3rd Main Road, Vidyapeetha, Banashankari 3rd stage, Srinivasanagara, Bengaluru. His father had obtained a plan and -3- NC: 2025:KHC:52328 WP No. 20010 of 2025 HC-KAR licence to construct a residential building comprised of ground and first floor during the year 1982. After the death of his father, the petitioner constructed an additional floor over the existing building and constructed it in accordance with the plan sanctioned.
(ii) When things stood thus, the respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 321(1) and 321(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'the KMC Act, 1976') and thereafter passed an order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976 dated 13.03.2015. It is claimed that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 inspected the building and directed some modification, which was accordingly done by the petitioner. It is claimed that after 10 years the respondent No.2 has passed an order bearing No. ªÀ.D(zÀ)/¹Ü.D/¦.Dgï/01/2025-26 dated 03.04.2025 under Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 to demolish the portion, which was in violation of the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 passed an order bearing No. ¸ÀPÁEA(«)/J¸ï15/¸À.EA(«)(vÁA)/2024-25/386-88 dated 26.05.2025 to show cause as to why the electricity connection should not -4- NC: 2025:KHC:52328 WP No. 20010 of 2025 HC-KAR be disconnected. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said orders.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the construction was put up in the year 1982 and that after the orders under Section 321(1), 321(2) and 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976 were passed, the officers had visited the building and suggested some modifications, which were accordingly done. Therefore, the respondents had not taken any action. However, after 10 years, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have passed the order under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020, following which, the respondent No.3 has issued a notice to disconnect the electric connection. He therefore prays that the impugned orders be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has failed to comply with the order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976 and therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were forced to take action under Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act. He contends that unless the petitioner challenges the order passed under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976, the order under Section 356 of the BBMP -5- NC: 2025:KHC:52328 WP No. 20010 of 2025 HC-KAR Act, 2020 and the consequent notice issued by respondent No.3 cannot be upset.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also submitted that the impugned notice was issued pursuant to the order under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The orders impugned in this writ petition are the ones passed under Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 and a consequent letter addressed by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner to show cause as to why electric connection should not be disconnected. The petitioner has not challenged the order passed under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, until the petitioner challenges the order passed under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976, the order passed under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020 cannot be upset.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:52328 WP No. 20010 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the order passed under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976, in accordance with law.
9. It is open for the petitioner to also seek interim reliefs in the appeal that may be filed and the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law.
10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are permitted to file a memo of appearance within ten days.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33