- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21849 WP No. 15685 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.15685 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SMT. APARNA KATARI W/O KOTESHWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.302, LAKSHMI ANJANEYA ENCLAVE, SRIVARI ROAD, MARAGONDANAHALLI, K R PURAM,. BANGALORE-560036 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560048 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE-560013 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21849 WP No. 15685 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER WARD NO.25, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HORAMAVU SUB DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE-560048 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DTD. 12.09.2022 BEARING NO. SA.KA.A/HORAMAVU/U.V/P.O/15/2022-23 PASSED UNDER 248(1) AND 248(2) OF THE BBMP ACT BY THE R-3 AND 4 VIDE ANNX-F 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 SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner bypassing the remedy of an appeal has knocked the doors of the writ Court by filing the captioned petition. 2. Respondents' counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Section 253 of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the BBMP Act'). However, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21849 WP No. 15685 of 2025 since a primary contention was raised in the captioned writ petition that provisional orders are passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the counsel appearing for BBMP was directed to secure records and verify as to whether the provisional order is confirmed strictly adhering to the mandate provided under Section 248(1) and (2). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- BBMP, placing reliance on the records available with the authority, submits that due compliance has been made with the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act. She would specifically contend that the provisional order dated 12.09.2022 issued under Section 248(1) was duly served on one of the partners of the petitioner-firm, who was actively associated with the business at the time the proceedings were initiated. Learned counsel submits that service of notice on a partner of the firm constitutes valid and sufficient service in law, particularly under the scheme of the BBMP Act. She - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21849 WP No. 15685 of 2025 further submits that the said partner subsequently retired from the partnership, but such retirement occurred much later, on 24.12.2024, as evidenced by the communication produced at Annexure–D. Therefore, she argues that the stand taken by the petitioner regarding lack of notice or non-compliance with the requirements of natural justice is wholly untenable. She emphasizes that all procedural safeguards mandated under the statute were adhered to before issuance of the final order. 4. This Court, having perused the records and taken note of the sequence of events as well as the contentions urged, is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The materials on record prima facie indicate that the petitioner was put on notice through service on its partner, and that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness have not been violated in any manner warranting interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21849 WP No. 15685 of 2025 Further, the statutory framework under the BBMP Act provides for an efficacious appellate remedy against orders passed under Section 248. Hence, the petitioner must avail the remedy of appeal before the competent appellate authority, wherein all contentions including those relating to merits, procedural compliance, and delay can be urged. 5. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority under the BBMP Act; (ii) It is made clear that no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (iii) If the petitioner prefers an appeal within the said period, the appellate authority shall, in the first instance, consider the delay in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21849 WP No. 15685 of 2025 filing such appeal and thereafter consider the petitioner’s application for interim relief/stay, in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16