- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5130 WP No. 35272 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 35272 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUDHA LAKSHMAN W/O K S LAKSHMAN GUPTA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.581, LAKSHMI ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, HMT LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560097 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. S.SUSHEELA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AKASH V T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU BANGALORE-560002 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VIDYARANYAPURA SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE-560045 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 1348/2017 AT ANNEXURE A, ETC. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5130 WP No. 35272 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. A provisional order was passed on 04.12.2017, in which it is alleged that there were setbacks violation to the extent of 100% in the basement and violation to the extent of 15% to 45% in respect of the ground, first and second floor. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner sought for time to file the reply orally, the said request was not acceded to and a confirmatory order was passed on 11.12.2017 that is about seven days after the provisional order was passed. 3. Learned Senior counsel also submits that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the proper perspective and the fact remains that the Karnataka - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5130 WP No. 35272 of 2024 Appellate Tribunal without considering the violation of the principal justice has dismissed the appeal. 4. A perusal of the provisional order and the confirmatory order does indicate that the petitioner had not filed objections to the provisional order and it is also seen that the final order has been passed within about seven days of the provisional order. 5. It is therefore clear that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to file objections. The contention of the petitioner that a joint inspection was necessary has also not been considered. 6. In my view, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. 7. The petitioner is permitted to file her objections to the provisional order dated 04.12.2017 and the respondents shall conduct a spot inspection in her presence and also thereafter consider her objections and pass an appropriate order. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5130 WP No. 35272 of 2024 8. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2