- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4044 WP No. 2239 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 2239 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BIPIN MANJUNATH S/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.288, SRI. LARANA KRUPA 6TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE -560 072 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTS BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. CHIEF THE COMMISSIONER - BBMP HUDSON CIRCLE N.R. SQUARE BANGALORE - 560 002 3. ZONAL COMMISSIONER - BBMP RAJARAJESHWARI SUB DIVISION - BBMP NO.18TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT, RR NAGARA BANGALORE – 98 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING RAJARAJESHWARI SUB DIVISION - BBMP NO.18TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT, RR NAGARA, BANGALORE – 98 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - BBMP, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4044 WP No. 2239 of 2025 RAJARAJESHWARI SUB DIVISION - BBMP NO.18TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT, RR NAGARA, BANGALORE - 98 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEUREX-A PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED. 07.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE NO. VA.HA/RARANAVA/P.O/27/2024- 25 UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF BBMP ACT, 2020 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION/ UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION AND FURTHER STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY BEARING PROPERTY NO. 13, 1ST CROSS, MALLATHAHALLI, RR NAGAR WARD NO. 56, BBMP, BANGALORE 56 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner herein is challenging a provisional order passed under Section 248(2) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has, in fact, filed objections to the provisional order. He, however, contends that the provisional order is bad because - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4044 WP No. 2239 of 2025 the said order was not preceded by any show-cause notice or was a joint inspection conducted. 3. In my view, these are the objections that have to be raised by the petitioner to the provisional order, if not already raised. The petitioner has the remedy of filing objections and if he has already availed of that remedy, no useful purpose would be served by entertaining the Writ Petition at this stage. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file any additional office objections, if he so desires, to the provisional order. 5. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32