- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22613 WP No. 18609 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18609 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MR. MURALI GOVINDARAJULU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O R. GOVINDARAJULU R/AT 360, 3RD CROSS BROOKEBOND LAYOUT WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJKUMAR .M.D, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION BENGALURU-560 066. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 30/05/2025 BEARING NO. BBMP/S.KA.A/Y.UV/13/2025-26 PASSED UNDER SECTION 248(3) BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE 'A' TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22613 WP No. 18609 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by respondent - Authority exercising power under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'BBMP Act, 2020'). 2. Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and also appearing for the respondent. 3. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed, in light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.16575/2025. The petitioner had approached this Court while the statutory proceedings under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 ("BBMP Act") were still ongoing. The primary grievance raised by the petitioner was that he was not afforded adequate opportunity to respond to the show- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22613 WP No. 18609 of 2025 cause notice issued under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act and the provisional order passed under Section 248(1). 4. This Court, after considering the statutory scheme, disposed of the writ petition by order dated 16.06.2025, reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit his reply along with supporting documents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. However, it is now submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP that the said order was not communicated to the concerned authority, which resulted in the authority proceeding to confirm the provisional order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. 5. On perusal of the records, it appears that the impugned order confirming the provisional order under Section 248(1) was passed solely due to lack of communication of this Court’s order dated 16.06.2025. The respondent-authority has proceeded to confirm the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22613 WP No. 18609 of 2025 provisional order without awaiting or considering the response permitted by this Court. 6. Though Section 248 of the BBMP Act does not prescribe a specific timeline for submission of objections, the provision clearly contemplates that the person against whom action is proposed shall be afforded reasonable time and opportunity to submit objections to both the provisional order and the show-cause notice issued under Sections 248(1) and 248(2) respectively. 7. Despite the liberty granted by this Court in its earlier order, the authority has acted in haste and proceeded to confirm the provisional order. The records also disclose that the petitioner did, in fact, submit a detailed reply on the very day the impugned order was passed, which is evident from Annexure-C. This reply, however, was not considered by the authority. 8. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order passed under Section 248(3) suffers from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22613 WP No. 18609 of 2025 a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, having constructed a residential building with an approved building plan and license, is entitled to submit an explanation in response to the provisional order. Denial of such an opportunity would result in grave prejudice and a miscarriage of justice. Section 248 of the BBMP Act envisions a fair procedure, including an opportunity to place objections and justify any permissible deviations. Since such an opportunity was effectively denied to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure–A) cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the respondent–Authority, as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22613 WP No. 18609 of 2025 produced at Annexure–A, is quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent–Authority is directed to consider the petitioner’s reply and supporting documents placed on record at Annexure–C. Upon examination of the said reply and relevant records, the Authority shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1