- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1386 WP No. 19816 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19816 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR SANDEEP VERMA S/O LATE HARI RAM VERMA AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO-N-1604 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1 BENGALURU-560100 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VINITHA P C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMAA PARK WEST T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560020 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO.1 (PLANNING) SUB DIVISION (SOUTH) BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560050 Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1386 WP No. 19816 of 2023 3. M SUBBURAJAN S/O S MAYILANDAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.K-103 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE I BENGALURU-560100 4. SRI NIRMAL M J S/O LATE JOSEPH THOMAS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.P-501 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE - 1 BENGALURU-560100 5. SMT REMYA CHERIAN W/O NIRMAL M J AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.P-501 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1 BENGALURU-560100 6. SRI ANUJ SRIVASTAVA S/O LATE G B L SRIVASTAVA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.D-1501 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1 BENGALURU-560100 7. SRI MANPREETH SINGH S/O SURJIT SINGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.M-1104 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1 BENGALURU-560100 8. SMT ALHILA PEREIRA W/O SUNIL JACOB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.B-1004 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1 BENGALURU-560100 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1386 WP No. 19816 of 2023 9. SRI ANISH ABRAHAM BRUCE S/O BRUCE THADATHIL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.H-502 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1 BENGALURU-560100 10. SRI SUNIL J S/O JACOB S AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.B-1004 CONCORDE MANHATTAN APARTMENTS NEELADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE BENGALURU-560100 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 28.8.2023 ISSUED BY THE R2, ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION, ANNEXURE-F AND THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 15.7.2022 AND 28.08.2023 OF THE RESIDENTS ANNEXURE-G AND L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of notice dated 28.08.2023 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-K and for direction to consider the representations of the petitioner–association produced at - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1386 WP No. 19816 of 2023 Annexure –F, representations of the residents dated 15.07.2022 and 28.08.2023 produced at Annexures G and L respectively. 2. It appears that respondent Nos.3 to 10 herein had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.10442/2022 claiming to be residents/occupants of the apartment with a grievance that area which is earmarked for civic amenities sites has been utilized by the petitioner herein for the construction of the temple unauthorizedly and as such sought for direction against the respondent –BDA to consider their representations dated 29.03.2022 and 09.04.2022 produced in the said writ petition at Annexures A and H respectively. 3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 02.08.2022, had disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent – BDA to consider the representations so made by respondent Nos.3 to 10 herein. Further, the respondent – BDA, issued a notice - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1386 WP No. 19816 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023 calling upon the petitioner herein to remove the encroachment within 3 days. 4. The grievance of the petitioner, in this case, is that though the direction was issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 02.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.10442/2022 to consider the representations of respondent Nos.3 to 10, the respondent – BDA, without even considering the said representations and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, had straight away issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to demolish/remove the alleged encroachment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent – BDA submits given some time the representations of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 to 10, would be considered within a time bound manner and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with the law. 6. Submission is taken on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1386 WP No. 19816 of 2023 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the representations of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 to 10 and after affording sufficient opportunity pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till such time, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioner. The parties are also at liberty to submit fresh/additional representation to respondent - BDA. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SKS