- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5323 WP No. 8265 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8265 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI L GOPINATH S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMIPATHY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.45, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ROAD HALASURU, BANGALORE-560008 SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR 1(A) SRI. G NAVEEN SON OF LATE GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.37, CAR STREET HAL 2ND STAGE, HALASURU BANGALORE-560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P B RAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5323 WP No. 8265 of 2017 SHIVAJINAGAR SUB DIVISION & DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560 002. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE B M T F POLICE STATION BBMP MAIN OFFICE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002. 4. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCY AGENCY NO.45, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA ROAD HALASURU BANGALORE-560 008 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SHARIF …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4-HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 25/7/2024) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE SAID NOTICES, AND QUASH THE NOTICE NO.HN806309016174937 DTD.19.8.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A ISSUED BY R-2 AND POLICE NOTICE NO. BMTF/PS/Cr.NO.129/2016 DTD.6.01.2017 VIDE ANNEX-B AND POLICE NOTICE NO. BMTF/PS/CR 129/2016, DTD.14.2.2017 VIDE ANNEX-C ISSUED BY R-3. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5323 WP No. 8265 of 2017 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is challenging a notice dated 19.08.2016 whereby the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') is calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,831/- as charges for unauthorizedly erecting a hoarding. 2. This Court while issuing notice had taken note of the fact that the petitioner had deposited the principal amount and also deposited a further sum of Rs.30,000/- and granted the petitioner an interim order, which is stated to be complied with. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner has not been heard in the matter before the impugned notice has been passed. 4. It is settled law that whenever a civil right or a liability is sought to be afflicted on a citizen, it is mandatory for the authorities to hear the citizen and then pass an order. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5323 WP No. 8265 of 2017 5. Since, in the instant case, the same is not forthcoming from the impugned order, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to treat the impugned notice as show-cause notice and permit him to file objections within a period of three weeks from today. 6. On such objections being filed, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. 7. Until then, since the petitioner had the benefit of an interim order, the same would enure to his benefit. 8. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44