IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1301 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO 1176 OF 2023 WRIT APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2023 WRIT APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2023 WRIT APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1301 OF 2023: BETWEEN: 1 . THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560002 2 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP HAROHALLI SUB DIVISION (WARD No.72) BENGLAURU -560 064 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.VIKRAM S HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) 2 AND: SMT. SMITA VIJAY W/O VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT No.53/55, 3RD FLOOR 11TH A CROSS, MUNIPAPAIA LAYOUT PAPAREDDY PALYA, NAGAR BHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560072 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JNANESH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W P No.10024 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No.10024 OF 2023 DATED 21.08.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO 1176 OF 2023: BETWEEN: 1 . THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 2 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BBMP, 9TH CROSS ROAD 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU 560 011 3 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP GIRINAGAR SUB DIVISION BENGALURU-560085 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND 3 SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. KAVITHA JAIN W/O MAHAVEER JAIN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2 . SRI. MAHAVEER JAIN S/O AMBALAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT No.13/1, 4TH FLOOR 11TH MAIN ROAD, II BLOCK, BSK I STAGE, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU 560050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. ADITYA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE, SMT. NIKITHA SURABHI, ADVOCATE AND SMT. NIDHI PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR INTERVENOR IN IA 1/25) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.9934/2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.934/2023 DATED 17.08.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2023: BETWEEN: 1 . THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002 2 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING DASARAHALLI ZONE, BBMP 4 BENGALURU-560073. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. NARAYANA M.G. S/O SRI. GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT No.411, II FLOOR 10TH MAIN, M S RAMAIAH LAYOUT NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560073 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JNANESH KUMAR K., ADVICATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.18147 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP. No.18147 OF 2023 DATED 21.08.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2023: BETWEEN: 1 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002 REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 2 . THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, V V PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 004. 3 . THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, V V PURAM, 5 BENGALURU - 560 004. 4 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, V V PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 004. 5 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, V V PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 004. 6 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, BBMP, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BBMP, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 011. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.VIKRAM.S.HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K B MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR S/O DINESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT No.66, SHANKESHWAR VILLA, RAMA IYENGAR ROAD, SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, V V PURAM BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. 2 . SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S. BHANSALI S/O. SAKAL CHAND BHANSALI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT No.4, 1ST FLOOR, MATHRU KRUPA APARTMENT, 4TH CROSS, N.S. IYENGAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 3 . SRI. MAHAVEER KUMAR S/O. JUGRAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 6 R/AT No.3, 2ND FLOOR, NAGARTHPET LANE, NAGARATHPET CROSS BANGALORE-560 002. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 4 . SMT. SUSHEELA BAI W/O. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S. BHANSALI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT No.4, 1ST FLOOR, MATHRU KRUPA APARTMENT, 4TH CROSS, N.S. IYENGAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 5 . SRI. MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O. SRI. JUGRAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT No.3, 2ND FLOOR, NAGARTHPET LANE, NAGARTHPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 6 . SMT. PRAVEENA JAIN W/O. SRI. MAHENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT No.03, 3RD FLOOR, MAKALAPPA LANE, NAGARTHPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002, REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 7 . SRI. ARAVIND BHANSALI S/O. SRI. KAILASH BHANSALI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT No.16, FLAT No.202, M.M.V. ROAD, V.V. PURAM, VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD CROSS, 7 BENGALURU-560 004. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 8 . SMT. SEEMA BHANSALI W/O. SRI. ARAVIND BHANSALI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT No.16, FLAT No.202, M.M.V. ROAD, V.V. PURAM, VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 004. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 9 . SRI. SOHANLAL S/O. LATE MUNNILAIJI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT No.101, 1ST FLOOR, COMFORT CASTLE, OPP: METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, V.V. PURAM, BANGALORE-560 004. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 10 . SRI. JUGRAJ S/O. SRI. RIKAB CHAND, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT No.920-921, NAGARTHPET, OTC ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002, REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 11 . SMT. MEENA DEVI W/O. SRI. PAWAN RAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT No.18/201, 2ND FLOOR, MADRASAB LANE, MANAVATHIPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 12 . SRI. PAWAN RAJ S/O DESH RAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 8 R/AT No.18/201, 2ND FLOOR, MADRASAB LANE, MANAVATHIPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053, REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 13 . SMT. HEMA JAIN W/O. CHAMPALAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT No.274, 3RD FLOOR, AKKAMAHADEVI MAIN ROAD, AKKIPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053. REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. 14 . SMT. BHARATHI W/O. SRI. MAHAVEER KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT No.3, 2ND FLOOR, MAKALLAPPA LANE, NAGARTHPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002, REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF SRI. BHAVESH KUMAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DR. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. G.K. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R12; SRI. S.F. GOUTAM CHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R13; R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.21273 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.21273 OF 2023 DATED 11.10.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1 . THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT: BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 9 N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MALLESHWARAM SUB DIVISOIN, BBMP, BENGALURU - 560003. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H. JAYARAM S/O LATE SRI HOMBALE AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT No.39/1, II CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALUR - 560021. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.22305/2022 DATED 26.09.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1 . THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGRA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BBMP, 9TH CROSS ROAD, 10 9TH MAIN ROAD, II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. GUNNVARDHAK SHWETAMBER MURTHY POOJAK JAIN SANGH REGISTERED TRUST AS PER THE TERMS OF DECLARATION OF TRUST DEED DATED 03.08.2018, OFF AT No.81/1, II FLOOR, GOVINDAPPA ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004, REP. BY TRUSTEE, SRI. DILIP PIRGAL. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE AND SMT. YESHASHWINI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.22674 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.22674 OF 2023 DATED 10.10.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1 . THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002. 2 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CITY PLANNING (SOUTH) No.32, 4TH MODEL HOUSE SREET ROAD BASAVANAGUDI 11 BENGALURU - 560004. 3 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, KORAMANGALA SUB DIVISION 2ND CROSS ROAD, V BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. MEENAKSHI M. W/O SRI. AMARANARAYANA Y. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT No.410, I "C" CROSS I "E" MAIN, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P No.22820 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.22820 OF 2023 DATED 11.10.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1 . THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002. 2 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHALAKSHMIPURAM SUB DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU 560086. ...APPELLANTS 12 (BY SRI. VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PUSHPALATHA R. W/O VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT No.458, PID No.16-1-485, III STAGE, IV BLOCK, SHAKTHI GANAPATHI NAGAR, BENGALURU 560079 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRAMOULI B.G., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.22832/2023 DATED 11.10.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1 . THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CITY PLANNING (WEST) BASHYAM PARK BENGALURU-560 020 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SURESH S. S/O B. SHIVAIAH 13 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT No.1579, 7TH CROSS GOVINDARAJA NAGARA CORPORATION COLONY BENGALURU-560 079 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.21585/2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.21585/2023 DATED 11.10.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WP AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1 . THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002. 2 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, HAROHALLI SUB DIVISION, WARD No.72, BENGALURU-560 003. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SUDHA L. W/O SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT No.3352 VINAYAKA LAYOUT 7TH CROSS, 4TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560072. …RESPONDENT 14 (BY SRI. RAJANNA C., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.9676/2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.9676/2023 DATED 21.08.2023 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Writ Appeals No.1301/2023, 1176/2023, 1293/2023, 1560/2023, 112/2024, 225/2024, 229/2024, 264/2024, 271/2024 and 354/2024 are filed against the order dated 21.08.2023, 17.08.2023, 21.08.2023, 11.10.2023, 26.07.2023, 10.11.2023, 11.10.2023, 11.10.2023, 11.10.2023 and 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.10024/2023, 9934/2023, 18147/2023, 21273/2023, 22305/2022, 22674/2023, 15 22820/2023, 22832/2023, 21585/2023 and 9676/2023 respectively. 2. We have heard Shri. Vikram. S. Huilgol, learned senior counsel for K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel and Sr. Pradeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Shri. Jnanesh Kumar. K, learned counsel, Shri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel, Smt. Dr. Vandana P.L, learned counsel, Shri. G.K. Shivaprakash, learned counsel, Shri. S.F. Goutam Chand, learned counsel, Shri. Akash. V.T, learned counsel, Smt. Yeshshwini, learned counsel, Shri. Chandramouli B.G, learned counsel, Shri. Jai Prakash Reddy M., learned counsel, Shri. Rajanna C, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Shri. Aditya Chatterjee, learned counsel, Smt. Nikitha Surabhi learned counsel and Smt. Nidhi Patil, learned counsel for intervenor in IA No.1/2025 in WA No.1176/2023. 3. It is submitted that challenging the provisional order issued under Section 248(1) and (2) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 ('BBMP Act' for short) and the confirmation order, the writ petitioners had 16 approached this Court filing the captioned writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, held that Section 74(2) of the BBMP Act does not permit the delegation of the Authority of the Zonal Commission and that his legal question has been answered in W.P.No.9934/2023 holding that until Rules are framed by the State, the Zonal Commissioner cannot delegate his powers let alone by way of an Office Circular. [ 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the specific language of Section 74 of the BBMP Act, permits the delegation of the powers of the Zonal Commissioner subject to the Rules to be framed. Section 74 of the BBMP Act reads as follows:- "74. Powers and Functions of the Zonal Commissioner.- The Zonal Commissioner shall perform the following functions, namely.- (a) He shall be the nodal authority for carrying out the civic administration on those matters specified under this Act for the zone under his jurisdiction; (b) He shall supervise, direct and coordinate the ward committees and the area sabhas on such matters as specified under this Act; (c) He shall undertake functions as directed by the Chief Commissioner or Mayor from time to time; and (d) Subject to the rules made by the State Government, the Zonal Commissioner may 17 delegate to any officer of the Corporation subordinate to him any of his ordinary powers, duties and functions as provided under the Act. It is an admitted case that no Rules have been framed. It is therefore, contended that subject to the Rules to be framed would mean that if no Rules are framed then the Power is with the Zonal Commissioner to delegate. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa State (Prevention and Control Of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills and Another reported in (2003) 10 SCC 421. A similar question came to be examined in this case, the relevant portion reads as follows:- "In one of the cases decided by this Court, to be referred later in this judgment “as may be prescribed” has been held to mean “if any”. It is thus clear that such expression leaves the scope for some play for the workability of the provision under the law. The meaning of the word “as” takes colour in context with which it is used and the manner of its use as prefix or suffix etc. There is no rigidity about it and it may have the meaning of a situation of being in existence during a particular time or contingent, and so on and so forth. That is to say, something to happen in a manner, if such a manner is in being or exists, if it 18 does not, it may not happen in that manner. Therefore, the reading of the provision under consideration makes it clear that manner of declaration is to be followed “as may be prescribed” i.e. “if any” prescribed. 13. Thus, in case manner is not prescribed under the rules, there is no obligation or requirement to follow any, except whatever the provision itself provides viz. Section 19 in the instant case which is also complete in itself even without any manner being prescribed as indicated shortly before to read the provision omitting this part “in such manner as may be prescribed”. Merely by absence of rules, the State would not be divested of its powers to notify in the Official Gazette any area declaring it to be an air pollution control area. In case, however, the rules have been framed prescribing the manner, undoubtedly, the declaration must be in accordance with such rules.” 6. Shri. Aditya Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for intervenor in IA No.1/2025 in WA No.1176/2023, has relied on the following decisions:- (i) In Surinder Singh v. Central Government and Others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 667, the Apex Court specifically has held as under:- "6. x x x x x Where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain 19 matters, subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. In other words framing of the rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conferred by the statute. The expression “subject to the rules” only means, in accordance with the rules, if any. If rules are framed, the powers so conferred on authority could be exercised in accordance with these rules. But if no rules are framed there is no void and the authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred by the statute. x x x x x " (ii) In D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India and Another reported in (2003) 6 SCC 186, paragraphs No.16 and 17 read as under:- "16. Placing such a construction, as we propose to, on the provision of Section 48-AA is permitted by well-settled principles of interpretation. Justice G.P. Singh states in Principles of Statutory Interpretation (8th Edn., 2001): “It may look somewhat paradoxical that plain meaning rule is not plain and requires some explanation. The rule, that plain words require no construction, starts with the premise that the words are plain, which is itself a conclusion reached after construing the words. It is not possible to decide whether certain words are plain or ambiguous unless they are studied in their context and construed.” (p. 45) 20 The rule of literal interpretation is also not to be read literally. Such flexibility to the rule has to be attributed as is attributable to the English language itself. 17. The learned author states again: “In selecting out of different interpretations ‘the court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things’, as it may be presumed ‘that the legislature should have used the word in that interpretation which least offends our sense of justice’.” (p. 113, ibid) “The courts strongly lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. A statute or any enacting provision therein must be so construed as to make it effective and operative ‘on the principle expressed in the maxim: ut res magis valeat quam pereat’.” (p. 36, ibid) “If the language used is capable of bearing more than one construction, in selecting the true meaning regard must be had to the consequences resulting from adopting the alternative constructions. A construction that result in hardship, serious inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly or which leads to inconsistency or uncertainty and friction in the system which the statute purports to regulate has to be rejected and preference should be given to that construction which avoids such results.” (pp. 112- 13, ibid) (iii) Sahni Silk Mills (P) Limited and Another v. Employees State Insurance Corporation reported 21 in (1994) 5 SCC 346, the Apex Court held at paragraphs No.5 and 6 as under:- "5. The courts are normally rigorous in requiring the power to be exercised by the persons or the bodies authorised by the statutes. It is essential that the delegated power should be exercised by the authority upon whom it is conferred and by no one else. At the same time, in the present administrative set-up extreme judicial aversion to delegation cannot be carried to an extreme. A public authority is at liberty to employ agents to exercise its powers. That is why in many statutes, delegation is authorised either expressly or impliedly. Due to the enormous rise in the nature of the activities to be handled by statutory authorities, the maxim delegatus non potest delegare is not being applied specially when there is question of exercise of administrative discretionary power. 6. By now it is almost settled that the legislature can permit any statutory authority to delegate its power to any other authority, of course, after the policy has been indicated in the statute itself within the framework of which such delegatee is to exercise the power. The real problem or the controversy arises when there is a sub-delegation. It is said that when Parliament has specifically appointed authority to discharge a function, it cannot be readily presumed that it had intended that its delegate should be free to empower another person or body to act in its place. In Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, this Court said in respect of sub-delegation: 22 “Bearing in mind that the maxim delegatus non potest delegare sets out what is merely a rule of construction, sub-delegation can be sustained if permitted by express provision or by necessary implication.” 7. Having considered the contentions advanced and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised in these appeals are liable to be accepted. 8. In the result:- (i) The appeals are allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 21.08.2023, 17.08.2023, 21.08.2023, 11.10.2023, 26.07.2023, 10.11.2023, 11.10.2023, 11.10.2023, 11.10.2023 and 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.10024/2023, 9934/2023, 18147/2023, 21273/2023, 22305/2022, 22674/2023, 22820/2023, 22832/2023, 21585/2023 and 9676/2023, respectively, are set aside. (iii) However, it is made clear that further action shall be taken in accordance with law by the officers properly empowered under law. 23 All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed in all the appeals. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE cp*