- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2312 WP No. 42012 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 42012 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S BLUENILE ADVERTISING PVT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERD OFFICE AT NO. 28, (OPH ROAD,), JUMA MASJID ROAD, OPP: COMMERCIAL STREET, BENGLAURU 560 051, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI. DEEPAK SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. K SHYAMSUNDER SHARMA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 001. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER AND DELEGATED AUTHORITY (EAST WING) MAYO HALL BUILDING, MG ROAD, BENGALURU 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDERS DATED 29.08.2018 VIDE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2312 WP No. 42012 of 2018 ANNX-K, DATED 29.08.2018 VIDE ANNX-K1, DATED 29.08.2018 VIDE ANNX-K2 AND DATED 29.08.2018 VIDE ANNX-K3 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. The petitioner in this petition is challenging the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner, whereby he has held that the hoarding structure and advertisements put up on the structure by the petitioner were illegal and unauthorized and he has called upon the petitioner to remove them. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that pursuant to these orders, the petitioner has not been permitted to put up advertisement hoardings on the structure. He further submits that he would be entitled to make a claim under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Advertisement) Bye-laws, 2024 (“the 2024 Bye- laws”) by virtue of being a legacy advertiser. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2312 WP No. 42012 of 2018 3. In my view, the prayers sought for in the instant writ petition would not survive for consideration, since in the pendency of the instant petition, the 2018 Bye- laws which were in operation at the time of the impugned orders, have been repealed and the Bye- laws of the year 2024 have come into force. 4. However, if the petitioner was to claim that he has some right under the 2024 Bye-laws, it would be open for him to make such a claim before the authorities. 5. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of as having become unnecessary. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63