- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6585 WP No. 27183 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 27183 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVA PRAKASH A.G.K. S/O GOVINDA SETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SMT PAVITHRA PRAKASH W/O SHIVA PRAKASH A G K AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A NO.174/3, I MAIN ROAD SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560020 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. ANUSHA.S.H., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.VEENAT.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE COMMISSIONERS OFFICE CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GANDHINAGARA SUB DIVISION DR T C M RAMAN ROAD BENGALURU-560053 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6585 WP No. 27183 of 2017 ORDER IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:15.5.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC. 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 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the confirmatory order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP'). 2. At the outset, it is noticed that a provisional order dated 09.05.2017 was passed by the jurisdictional Asst. Executive Engineer and this was followed by a confirmatory order dated 15.05.2017 i.e., within about six days. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not granted adequate time to file their objections. 3. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, had granted the petitioners an interim order on 05.07.2017 and the petitioners have had the benefit of this interim order ever since. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6585 WP No. 27183 of 2017 4. Though, normally, the petitioners would have been relegated to avail of the remedy of an appeal, having regard to the fact that this writ petition is pending for the past seven years and the petitioners had the benefit of an interim order, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned confirmatory order and remand the matter. 5. Since, admittedly the petitioners have not filed their objections to the provisional order, the petitioners are permitted to file their objections to the provisional order within a period of three weeks from today and on receipt of the said objections, the BBMP shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51