- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:351 WP No. 35405 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 35405 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI G. PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE M GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, GOSAIAH STREET, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE 27. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (EAST) EAST DIVISION BBMP, 22ND FLOOR, SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHANTHINAGAR DIVISION, 9TH FLOOR, PU BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, MAYOHALL, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:351 WP No. 35405 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DTD. 15.06.2024 BEARING NO. SA.NI/(NA.YO)/PORVA/CO/22/24-25 PASSED UNDER 248(3) OF THE BBMP ACT BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-D TO THE WRIT PETITION. 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 1. The petitioner is challenging a provisional order and also a confirmatory order passed under Section 248(1) and (2) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (BBMP Act) and Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. 2. He is also seeking for quashing of the consequential order of demolition that has been passed under Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Authority which issued the provisional confirmatory order did not possess the jurisdiction and therefore, the orders cannot be sustained. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:351 WP No. 35405 of 2024 4. He also submits that the petitioner was not served with the provisional order to enable him to file objections. 5. Learned counsel for the BBMP submits that the Assistant Director has issued the provisional order and the confirmatory order under the power delegated to him and therefore, he did possess jurisdiction. 6. Apart from the above contentions, it is noticed that the confirmatory order was passed on the ground that no objections were filed by the petitioner. 7. Though in the normal circumstances an appeal would have to be filed, since the petitioner contends that he has not been served with the copy of the provisional order and a confirmatory order has been passed without hearing him, in my view, instead of relegating the petitioner to the remedy in filing an appeal, it would be appropriate to quash the confirmatory order dated 15.06.2024 and direct the petitioner to file his objections to the provisional - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:351 WP No. 35405 of 2024 order dated 28.05.2024 within a period of four weeks from from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The petitioner shall be permitted to raise all contentions as are available in law. 9. On such objections being filed, the respondent No.2 shall pass an order in accordance with law. 10. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. 11. The consequential demolition order passed shall also be quashed. 12. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77