- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11400 WP No. 8141 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 8141 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SANJAY MUTHA S/O FATEHRAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SRI JEETENDRA MUTHA S/O FATEHRAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO 4, SREEKANTESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, R T STREET, B V K IYENGAR CROSS, BENGALURU - 53 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002 Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11400 WP No. 8141 of 2025 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BBMP COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU- 560 011 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BBMP COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU- 560 011 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE SUB DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS ROAD, H SIDDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DTD 07.07.2023 BEARING NO. NI.NA.YO(DHA)/CO/63/2023-24 PASSED UNDER 248(3) OF THE BBMP ACT BY THE R-2 AND 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-H1 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11400 WP No. 8141 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the order at Annexure-'H1' dated 07.07.20323 passed under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act ('BBMP Act' for short). 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they did not have notice of the said order and came to know about the order only when the order at Annexure-'G' dated 05.03.2025 came to be served, which was order of demolition passed under Section 356 of the BBMP Act. 4. It is noticed that as against the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, substantive right of appeal under Section 253 lies to the Chief Commissioner. 5. Accordingly, it would be appropriate considering the consequences flowing from the orders passed under - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11400 WP No. 8141 of 2025 Section 248(3) and Section 356 of the BBMP Act to relegate the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. The petitioners are at liberty to file an appeal in terms of Section 253 and if appeal is filed within ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the Chief Commissioner to take note of the same without raising any objection on the ground of limitation. 7. However, there would be an interim order of stay of the orders passed under Section 248(3) and Section 356 of the BBMP Act till the Appellate Authority considers the application for stay in the appeal which the petitioners undertake to file. 8. Needless to state that the benefit as granted above would enure to the petitioners only if appeal is filed within ten days as stated above. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR