- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9703 WP No. 31981 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 31981 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MR GAUTHAM B NAGARAJ S/O MR H L NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. MRS NEHA NAGARAJ @ NEHA NARENDRA PHULWANI W/O MR. GAUTHAM B NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO 212, 3RD STAGE, 2ND BLOCK BASAVESWARANAGAR JUDGE'S COLONY BANGALORE - 79 BOTH REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR H L NAGARAJA … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MITHUN S K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (EARLIER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE) N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER … RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9703 WP No. 31981 of 2024 (BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N R., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN LEGAL NOTICE DATED 06.08.2024 VIZ., ANNEXURE-A AND FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEFS, WRIT DIRECTIONS, DECLARATIONS AND ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the request made by the petitioners by virtue of legal notice at Annexure-'A' dated 06.08.2024. The legal notice at Annexure-'A' has called upon the respondent-BBMP to cover the drain situated on the Northern side of petitioners' property with a further undertaking that the petitioners would incur the expenditure for such work to be executed by the respondent-BBMP. In light of non-consideration of the said representation, the petitioners are before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9703 WP No. 31981 of 2024 2. It is averred by the petitioners that on the Northern side, there is a sewage/drain adjacent to the property of petitioners and the said drain not being covered has become a source of nuisance for the neighbours. It is further submitted that a portion of the drain is covered and only an extent of 5% of the drain is left uncovered near the Northern side of petitioners' property. 3. It is also submitted that in light of smell from the water flowing in the said drain as well as mosquito menace therein due to garbage, the petitioners have sought for covering the drain. 4. No doubt, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.26449/2021 before the Civil Court. However, it is submitted that the urgency of relief is now founded on the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the present petition has been filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9703 WP No. 31981 of 2024 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- BBMP submits that there are practical difficulties in closing the drain in light of requirement of maintenance of the drain as well as the order of National Green Tribunal (NGT) and therefore, by virtue of the same, the drain cannot be fully covered. 6. Heard both sides. The respondent-BBMP has relied on the order of NGT to state that there are difficulties in covering the drain, however, it is noticed that undisputedly a portion of the drain is covered. 7. In light of such fact that portion of the drain is already covered, the respondent BBMP is directed to reconsider the endorsement and examine the representation of the petitioner as is permissible in law. Such reconsideration to be completed within a period of three months. 8. Needless to state that, if the only ground of non-covering of drain is difficulty in maintenance and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9703 WP No. 31981 of 2024 management, necessary technical solutions could be worked out to design the covering of drain in a manner that cleaning and maintenance could be taken care of. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has undertaken to bear the expenses. Nevertheless this aspect is to be looked into by the respondent BBMP which is the appropriate authority. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR