- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8237 WP No. 5530 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 5530 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NARENDRA PUROHIT S/O KALYANA SINGH PUROHIT, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT.NO.19/2B, BANASHANKARI NILAYA, 4TH FLOOR, 11TH CROSS, S.R. NAGARA, VTC, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU SOUTH-560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V R BALARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER) CORPORATION CIRCLE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560002. 2. THE BBMP, ZONAL COMMISSIONER (WEST) BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560020. 3. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BBMP, TOWN PLAN (WEST), BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560020. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, TOWN PLAN (WEST), BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560020. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8237 WP No. 5530 of 2025 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, TOWN PLAN (WEST), BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560020. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER FOR WARD-104, TOWN PLAN (WEST), BHASHYAM PARK, BBMP, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560020. 7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, BBMP, TOWN PLAN [WEST] BHASHYAM PARK, TOWN PLAN (WEST), SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 26.03.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED R-3 IN NO. SA.NI.NA.YO(PA)/CO/84/2023-24 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F, ETC. 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. It is the case of the petitioner that as against an order of confirmation, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and even before the appeal has been taken up for consideration, the notice of demolition was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8237 WP No. 5530 of 2025 issued on 30.01.2025 and, hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 2. Since the petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal, it is obvious that until the appeal is disposed of, the demolition should not take place, as the very filing of the appeal would become frustrated. 3. Consequently, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep the order of demolition in abeyance and take a decision on the demolition after the decision on the appeal has been rendered and which is stated to be pending consideration before the appellate authority. 4. 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.: 14