- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50046 WP No. 36355 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36355 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. DILIP G JAIN, S/O LATE C. GOUTAMCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 3RD MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU-560 018 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.S. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA) HAVING OFFICE AT: NR SQUARE, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE, BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA), HAVING OFFICE AT: NR SQUARE, BENGALURU -560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHAMARAJAPET SUB-DIVISION, BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA) BENGALURU -560 018 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50046 WP No. 36355 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER BEARING NO. BBMP/VA. AA/PA. VA VA/PR/69/24-25, DATED 27.03.2025, NOTICE BEARING NO.BBMP/VA. AA/ PA. VA VA/PR/69/24-25, DATED 27.03.2025, CONFIRMATORY ORDER BEARING NO.BBMP/VA. AA/PA. VA VA/PR/69/25-26, DATED 27.06.2025, BUT SERVED ON 27.11.2025, ALL PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN, VIDE ANNEXURE A TO C 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 challenged a provisional order bearing No.©©JA¦/ªÀ.D(¥À)/¦Dgï/69/24-25 dated 27/03/2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and a confirmation order bearing No.©©JA¦/ªÀ.D/ªÀ.ªÀ/¦Dgï/69/25-26 dated 27/06/2025 passed by the respondent No.2 as well as a notice bearing No.©©JA¦/ªÀ.D/ªÀ.ªÀ/¦Dgï/69/24-25 dated 27.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the property bearing khata No.11, PID No.46-5-11, old No.5, 3rd Main Road, Chamarajpet, Ward No.46, Bengaluru-560 018. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50046 WP No. 36355 of 2025 He obtained a plan and a licence to construct the stilt, ground, first, second and third floors. He claims that he has put up construction according to the sanctioned plan and that there are no deviations. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 issued a provisional order under Section 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the BBMP Act, 2020’) and a notice under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The petitioner met the officials of the respondent – Greater Bengaluru Authority and submitted a reply claiming that he had not violated the sanctioned plan and requested the respondents to conduct a spot inspection and measure the building in his presence. The petitioner claims that a final/confirmation order was not passed by the respondent No.2 and it was not served on him. However, when respondent Nos.1 to 3 communicated to the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (‘BESCOM’ for short) about the provisional order and in view of the same, Superintending Engineer (Ele.), BESCOM, West Circle, addressed a communication dated 24.09.2025 to the petitioner in continuation of the earlier communication dated 14.02.2025, the petitioner was requested to contact the jurisdictional planning authority / local authorities and obtain the Occupancy - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50046 WP No. 36355 of 2025 Certificate for his building and produce it before the said Authority for release of power connection. The petitioner claims that the building is now fully constructed and people are residing therein. In view of the threat of disconnection of electricity supply, he filed W.P. No.33199/2025 and this Court in terms of an order dated 05.11.2025, directed respondent Nos.5 and 6 therein not to disconnect the electricity supply to the petitioner's schedule property or take any further action pursuant to the notice dated 24.09.2025, till the next date of hearing. The petitioner claims that he was under the impression that the final order would be passed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) by considering his objections. When the officials of the respondent No.3 visited the building of the petitioner on 27.11.2025 and served an antedated confirmation order dated 27.06.2025 and directed the petitioner to remove the movables on the building as they intended to demolish the building. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the provisional order, confirmation order as well as the notice all issued by the respondent No.2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50046 WP No. 36355 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the confirmation order passed by the respondent No.2 as it was not served upon him and in the meanwhile, the respondents have swooped down on the petition schedule property to demolish the building. He, therefore, prays that the impugned confirmation order be stayed so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the Chief Commissioner under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the confirmation order was passed on 27.06.2025 itself and the same is served on the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not take any steps to file an appeal and therefore, the respondents were forced to take further action by issuing a notice dated 26.11.2025. He, therefore, contends that no indulgence be shown to the petitioner as he has slept over his rights. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50046 WP No. 36355 of 2025 6. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that a final/confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is passed by the respondent No.2 and that he is in receipt of the same. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to challenge the final order by preferring an appeal before the appropriate Authority. He certainly cannot challenge the confirmation order before this Court. Therefore, without going into the question whether the petitioner was served with the confirmation order or not, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate Authority. 7. In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 before the appropriate Authority/Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority against an order passed under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. The said appeal shall be filed within a period of thirty days from today. Until the filing of the appeal within the time mentioned above, the respondents are directed not to take any precipitative action against the petitioner or his building/petition schedule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50046 WP No. 36355 of 2025 property. It is open for the petitioner to seek interim reliefs before the appropriate Authority in the appeal that may be filed by him. The electricity connection granted to the building in question shall also not be disconnected until the petitioner files an appeal before the Appellate Authority. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent is permitted to file a memo of appearance within 10 days from today. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1