- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16430 WP No. 10457 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 10457 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHIVAKUMARI W/O SRI BASAVARAJ MUDHOL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO.410, A BLOCK, D.S.MAX SOLITAIRE, BANJARA LAYOUT, KALKERE, HORAMAVU AGARA, BENGALURU - 560 043 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH NAGARALE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 009 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING (EAST) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 22ND FLOOR, S. C. BOSE BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CITY PLANNING (EAST) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16430 WP No. 10457 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 26.06.2023 BEARING NO. SA.NI.NA.YO/(PO)/C.O/15/23-24 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.02 UNDER SECTIONS 248(1) AND 248(2) OF THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, 2020, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the validity of the order dated 15.07.2023 at Annexure-'D' passed under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 ['BBMP Act' for short]. It is submitted that subsequent to such notice, the order has been passed under Section 356 of the BBMP Act as well. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has a substantive remedy of appeal under Section 253 of BBMP Act as against the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, before the Chief Commissioner. Though various other contentions have been raised, as regards the aspect of jurisdiction, it is always open for the petitioner to raise such contention even before the Appellate Authority. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16430 WP No. 10457 of 2025 3. Accordingly, it would be appropriate considering the consequences flowing from the orders passed under Section 248(3) and Section 356 of the BBMP Act to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal in terms of Section 253 of the BBMP Act and if an appeal is filed within two weeks from today, the Chief Commissioner to take note of the same without raising any objection on the ground of limitation. 5. 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 petitioner undertakes to file. Needless to state that the protection afforded would be subject to the petitioner filing an appeal within two weeks from today. All contentions, including jurisdiction are kept open. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16430 WP No. 10457 of 2025 6. Needless to state that the benefit as granted above would enure to the petitioner only if an appeal is filed within two weeks as stated above. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR