- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5298 WP No. 65190 of 2016 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. 65190 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. M/S LE MERIDIAN BANGALORE BY ITS OWNER, M/S MAC CHARLES (I)LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: P.B.NO.174, NO.28, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT (FINANCE) & COMPANY SECRETARY, MR M.S.REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/OF MR BASI REDDY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJU M SUBBAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 002. 2. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BBMP, VASANTHANAGAR SUB-DVN., AND DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF IST RESPONDENT QUEENS ROAD, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5298 WP No. 65190 of 2016 BANGALORE-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B L SANJEEV., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.HN806409316173541 DTD.19.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-H AND 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. A notice dated 19.08.2016 by which the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,13,435=52 as charges for unauthorized display of a hoarding, is questioned in this writ petition. 2. This Court entertained this writ petition and granted an interim order on 20.12.2016 subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the demanded amount. It is stated that this interim order has been complied with. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5298 WP No. 65190 of 2016 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Notice at Annexure “H” does not indicate that the petitioner was notified before the demand was made. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the allegations made in the notice that the hoarding was put up unauthorizedly. He also disputes the period during which the BBMP claims that the hoarding was put up. 5. In my view, since the petitioner has not been heard in the matter before the impugned demand was made, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to treat the demand notice at Annexure ‘H’ as a show cause notice and file its objections before respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks from today. 6. The BBMP shall thereafter consider the objections and pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5298 WP No. 65190 of 2016 7. Until then, the interim order granted by this Court will enure to the petitioner’s benefit. 8. The writ petition is according allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39