- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21602 WP No. 17458 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.17458 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI HITESH BHANDARI S/O ASHOK KUMAR BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. SRI. NITIN BHANDARI S/O ASHOK KUMAR BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.159/31, 14TH MAIN, 8TH B CROSS, NEAR DANVANTRI MEDICALS, ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BANGALORE 560001, 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESWARINAGARA, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21602 WP No. 17458 of 2025 BANGALORE-560 098. 4. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESWARINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 098. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESWARINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 098. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESWARINAGARA, BANGALORE-560098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA.B., AGA FOR R-1 AND SRI. PAWAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED: 10.06.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, (I) REFUSING TO GRANT EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM ORDER OF STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 253 OF BBMP ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN APPEAL NO.136/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21602 WP No. 17458 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the non-consideration of the stay application filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority/respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of confirmation issued under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, by preferring an appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 253 of the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the order sheet maintained by the appellate authority, submits that despite having filed I.A. No.1 seeking interim protection, the appellate authority has merely directed the office to secure records and has not passed any orders on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. 3. It is well-settled that when an appeal is filed before a quasi-judicial authority, particularly in cases involving demolition of buildings or interference with possession, the appellate authority is under a legal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21602 WP No. 17458 of 2025 obligation to apply its mind to any interlocutory application filed seeking interim relief. Non-consideration of such an application can render the statutory remedy of appeal wholly illusory and may result in irreparable prejudice, including rendering the appeal infructuous. The appellate forum, being a creation of statute, cannot remain passive or indifferent to interim prayers, especially where the consequences of inaction are irreversible. 4. In the present case, although the appeal was filed on 10.06.2025 and an interlocutory application was submitted seeking urgent interim relief, no orders have been passed thereon till date. Inaction on the part of the appellate authority defeats the purpose of providing a statutory appellate remedy. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to limited protection, pending consideration of the said applications. 5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed not to take any precipitative action in pursuance of the impugned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21602 WP No. 17458 of 2025 order, until the petitioner’s interlocutory applications, including those filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under Section 253 of the BBMP Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are considered and disposed of on merits by the appellate authority. 6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, directing respondent No.2/appellate authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on the interlocutory applications at the earliest, in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall not proceed with any further construction activity during the pendency of the interlocutory applications, and this limited protection granted by the Court shall not be construed as permitting continuation of construction in any manner. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1