- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16567 WP No. 11756 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11756 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MR. GRANDHI SATISH, S/O SRI. PRASADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO. 20A, AYYAPPA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, AYYAPPA NAGAR, HOODI, BENGALURU - 560 036. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARGAV G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU BANGALORE - 560 002. 2. ZONAL COMMISSIONER, HOODI SUB DIVISION, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 048. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HOODI SUB DIVISION, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 048. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HOODI SUB DIVISION, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 048. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16567 WP No. 11756 of 2025 5. POLICE INSPECTOR, K.R. PUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 036. 6. BESCOM, E-7, KR PUR SUB DIVISION, BESCOM DURAVANINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 036. ALSO AT K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 7. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD (BWSSB), CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.10.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS/BBMP BEARING REFERENCE BBMP/MAVA/KA (MAVA)/356/405/2024-25 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 filed along with a memo the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Bruhath Bengaluru - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16567 WP No. 11756 of 2025 Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, BBMP Act) dated 05.10.2024 obtained under Right to Information Act. 2. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 05.10.2024 passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no notice under Section 248 proceedings and accordingly, orders are passed are in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel Respondent/BBMP as against the orders passed under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, there is a remedy of statutory appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. It would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail such remedy of statutory appeal against the roder passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. 4. The petitioner is reserved liberty to challenge the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 within a period of two weeks. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16567 WP No. 11756 of 2025 5. If such appeal is filed within a period of two weeks, the Respondent Authorities are not to raise any objections regarding limitation and to take on record the appeal filed. 6. Considering the apprehension of the petitioner that the Respondent Authorities may proceed for demolition, it is made clear that, in the event, petitioner files an appeal, as observed above, within a period of two weeks, there would be a stay of an order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act as well as any other consequential order, till the time the Chief Commissioner considers the request for interim prayer of the petitioner, in the appeal to be filed. All contentions are kept open. Petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK