- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24802 WP No. 19497 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.19497 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.KARIM AMZAD KHAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM R/AT FLAT NO.401 RITA MANOR, NO.8 CARLESTON ROAD COOKE TOWN BANGALORE - 560 005 2. SRI.DINESH JAIN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O MR.HASTIMAL R/AT NO.5, VIVIANI ROAD FRASER TOWN BANGALORE - 560 005 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.G.DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24802 WP No. 19497 of 2025 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE EAST DIVISION OFFICE AT 22ND FLOOR SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING M G ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (EAST DIVISION) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE EAST DIVISION OFFICE AT 22ND FLOOR SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING M G ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 AND R.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 02-06-2025 PASSED IN NO.V.A. (EAST)/VA-59/85/P.R/05/2025-2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24802 WP No. 19497 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners are assailing the impugned notice dated 02.06.2025 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A and the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-F. 2. The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether respondent No.3 could have issued a notice on 02.06.2025 evidenced at Annexure-A. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, 'BBMP Act, 2020') is presently pending consideration before the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, who is the designated Appellate Authority under the said enactment. The records placed before this Court reveal that the petitioners have preferred the appeal challenging the confirmation order dated 05.03.2025 passed under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24802 WP No. 19497 of 2025 Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, whereby the earlier provisional order of demolition issued under Section 248(1) has been affirmed. Despite the pendency of the appeal since 21.03.2025, the Appellate Authority has not yet taken cognizance of the matter nor has he proceeded to consider the same on merits. 4. It is further evident from the records that along with the appeal, the petitioners have also filed an interlocutory application seeking interim stay of the demolition order passed under Sections 248(1) and 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. However, even after the lapse of several months, the said application remains unattended and is yet to be considered by the Chief Commissioner. In the meantime, this Court is informed that respondent No.3 – the Zonal Commissioner, BBMP, is proceeding to implement the final order of demolition passed under Section 248(3), notwithstanding the fact that the appeal and the stay application filed by the petitioners are still pending before the Appellate Authority. Such a course - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24802 WP No. 19497 of 2025 adopted by respondent No.3, in the considered opinion of this Court, runs contrary to the principles of procedural fairness and the statutory scheme that provides for appellate redressal. 5. It is no doubt true that unauthorized constructions and violations of sanctioned building plans must be viewed seriously and the authorities are well within their jurisdiction to initiate and implement demolition proceedings in accordance with law. However, when a statutory appeal has been filed before the designated Appellate Authority under the BBMP Act, 2020, it is incumbent upon the said authority to consider the same in a time-bound and judicious manner, particularly when an interlocutory prayer for stay of demolition is also pending. The obligation to maintain procedural fairness is fundamental, especially in quasi-judicial proceedings that have civil consequences. In the present case, despite the availability of a statutory remedy and the pendency of the stay application, the respondent authorities are hastening - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24802 WP No. 19497 of 2025 to implement the demolition order without awaiting a decision on the interim relief. Such action not only renders the appellate remedy illusory but also undermines the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to intervene and grant interim protection to the petitioners. Although respondent No.3 is statutorily empowered to enforce the demolition order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, the fact that the petitioners' interlocutory application remains undecided compels this Court to grant limited protection until the Appellate Authority considers and disposes of the same on merits. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned notice dated 02.06.2025 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24802 WP No. 19497 of 2025 stayed till the petitioners' interlocutory application filed in the pending appeal in Appeal No.77/2025 before the Chief Commissioner, BBMP - respondent No.2 is considered strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30