- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34327 WP No. 21002 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 21002 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT.I.B. SUDHA WIFE OF 1.D, BIDAPPS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 370/1, 5TH MAIN, 3 CROSS, NEAR WATER TANK, HOOTGALLI, MYSURU-570 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, HOOTGALLI, MYSURU TALUK DISTRICT - 570018 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTICITY SUPPLY, CORPORTION LTD, OFFICE OF THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34327 WP No. 21002 of 2025 O & M SUB DIVISION, HOOTAGALLY, MYSURU - 570002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHI V. HCGP FOR R1, SRI G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3- SERVED) THIS WP UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CONFIRMATION ORDER DTD 3.07.2025 BEARING NO. NA SA HOO/TAM SHA/CR-03/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-AQUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 10.7.2025 BEARING NO. SA KA NI M (VE/SA M (TA/HOO-UO VI/2025- 26/762 AT ANX-A1 ISSUED BY THE R-3 QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DTD 5.06.2025 BEARING NO. NA SA HOO/TAM SHA/CR-03/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE R-2 UNDER ANX-D THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Impugned orders have been passed by the second respondent against the petitioner on the ground that construction that is taking place on the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition is without obtaining any license or necessary sanctioned plan. On the ground that the impugned notices instead of being issued to the petitioner have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34327 WP No. 21002 of 2025 been issued to the third party. Hence the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers: "i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, so as to quash the impugned confirmation order dated, 3.7.25, bearing no. Na.Sa.Hoo/Tam.sha/CR-03/2025-26, issued by 2nd respondent, at Annexure-A. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, so as to quash the impugned notice dated 10/07/2025 bearing No. Sa.Ka.Ni.M(Ve)/Sa.M(Ta)/Hoo-Uo.Vi/2025-26/762 at Annexure-A-1, issued by 3rd respondent. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the provisional order dated, 5.6.25, bearing No. Na.Sa.Hoo/Tam.sha/CR-03/2025-26, issued by 2nd respondent, under (Annexure-D)." 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, upon instruction submits that, by mistake the notices were issued to the third party, however, the petitioner came to know of the notices, received the same and has issued a reply, and the confirmation order has been passed after hearing the petitioner and it is passed against the petitioner only. It is also submitted that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. Though notice has not been issued to the petitioner initially after coming to know about the said notice, the petitioner has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34327 WP No. 21002 of 2025 replied to the same to the authorities concerned and the authorities after hearing the petitioner has passed impugned confirmation order at annexure-A to the writ petition. 3. It is further seen that petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. 4. Under the said circumstances, I am the opinion, it would be appropriate to relegate the petition to the Revisional Authority. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority in the manner known to law. ii) The respondents are hereby directed not to precipitate the matter against the petitioner for a period of four weeks from today, provided the petitioner prefer the revision petition within the said period. iii) In case the petitioner preferred a revision, the respondents shall not precipitate the matter against the petitioner till a decision on merits is taken by the revisional authority in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34327 WP No. 21002 of 2025 iv) The petitioner is also restrained from putting up additional construction over the property. However the petitioner is given the liberty to do the interior work on the already constructed building. However, the petitioner shall not claim any equity if he were to lose the case before the revisional authority. v) This order will not come in the way of any of the neighbours who wants to enforce their rights against the petitioner before the civil court or such other authority as the case may be. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE HR