- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1073 WP No. 27400 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 27400 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MR. GAURAV U. T., AGE 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.R. THIMMEGOWDA, R/AT NO.152/6, 'SRI SAI VRUKSHA', KARISHMA HILLS, DAFFODILS ROAD, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, GUBBALALA, BENGALURU - 560 061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATEESH BABU A.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE H.O, 2ND FLOOR, B.D.A COMPLEX, SECTOR-4, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENGINEERING DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BOMMANAHALLI, BEGURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1073 WP No. 27400 of 2024 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BEGUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 068. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE, WARD NO. 184, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 062. 6. SMT. U.T. MANASA, W/O SHIVAKUMAR SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT 3626, WOODSTOCK CT, MELBOURNE, FLORIDA - 32904, USA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT A. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. P. VYASATHIRTA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-3 AND 5 TO CONSIDER THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 14.05.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND D1 RESPECTIVELY, AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of directions to the BBMP to consider the legal notice and the representation, in which, it was contended that the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1073 WP No. 27400 of 2024 respondent No.6 was putting up construction without obtaining the sanction plan. 2. Respondent No.6 has filed an application for vacating stay and along with the stay application, he has produced the building licence which has been granted by the BBMP dated 06.07.2011. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has produced building licence, it is obvious that the request made by the petitioner to consider his representation which was based on the premise that there was no licence would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become unnecessary. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK