- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48872 WP No. 33833 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33833 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: VALLI AHMED KHAN @ IRFAN KHAN S/O LATE AZMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, 2ND CROSS, MARAPPA THOTA, JC NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED NAWAZ SHARIFF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, EARLIER KNOWN AS BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP CORPORATION OFFICE, NR SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BBMP, EAST ZONE, BANGALORE - 560 063. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, VASANTHNAGAR SUB-DIVISION, WARD NO. 62, BANGALORE - 560 051. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48872 WP No. 33833 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-2, BESCOM, 1ST EAST DIVISION, PILLANNA GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 045. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DIVISION 2, BWSSB, 2ND CROSS, KEMPEGOWDA TOWER, 10TH MAIN, SADASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080. 6. SMT. NASREEN TAJ, W/O AMEENULLAH KHAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, 3RD CROSS, R SONAPPA BLOCK, BENSON TOWN BANGALORE - 560 046 7. MR. AMEENULLAH KHAN, S/O LATE H AZEEZ KHAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, 3RD CROSS, R SONAPPA BLOCK, BENSON TOWN BANGALORE - 560 046. 8. SRI. RIYAZ KHAN, S/O AMEENULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, 3RD CROSS, R SONAPPA BLOCK, BENSON TOWN BANGALORE - 560 046. 9. SRI. OWAIS KHAN, S/O AMEENULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, 3RD CROSS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48872 WP No. 33833 of 2025 R SONAPPA BLOCK, BENSON TOWN BANGALORE - 560 046. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS IN APPEAL NO. 125/2025 AT ANNEXURE-L IN A TIME BOUND MANNER i.e WITHIN A TIME FRAME OF 60 DAYS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to conduct the proceedings in Appeal No.125/2025 in a time bound manner and to direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 to disconnect the electricity and water supply respectively until the deviation and the unauthorised construction are removed. 2. The petitioner contends that respondent Nos.6 to 9 are his neighbours and they have constructed a building in absolute violation of the sanctioned building plan and the building bye-laws. He therefore submitted a complaint on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48872 WP No. 33833 of 2025 07.03.2025. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, after conducting a spot inspection, issued a provisional order where they found that the building constructed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 was in violation of more than 100% from the sanctioned building plan. A confirmation order was also passed under Sections 248(3) and 356(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. He contends that respondents Nos.6 to 9 have filed an appeal, No. 125/2025, before respondent No.1 and the same is pending consideration. He therefore prays for a direction to respondent No.1 to expedite the hearing of the appeal and, in the meanwhile, seeks a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to disconnect the electricity and water supply to the building constructed by respondent Nos.6 to 9. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when confirmation order is passed, it is evident that there is a violation of the sanctioned plan and therefore, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are bound to be directed to disconnect the electricity and water supply. He submits that respondent No.1, before whom an appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 is pending, is to be directed to dispose it off expeditiously. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48872 WP No. 33833 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the appeal is being taken up by respondent No.1 and that the same would be done in accordance with law at the earliest. He submits that until respondent No.1 decides the appeal, no effective directions can be issued to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to disconnect the electricity and water supply. 5. Since it is stated by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 would be taken up for consideration at the earliest, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider the appeal and dispose of the same at the earliest. 6. It is open for the petitioner to file necessary application before respondent No.1 to direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to disconnect the electricity and water supply respectively while considering the appeal on its merits. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE rv, Sl No.: 25, CT: BHK