- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48491 WP No. 35378 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35378 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: HARISH RAVILLA S/O RAVILLA VENKATATAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.19-14-37, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, THIRUPATHI URBAN, CHITTOOR, AP-517501 ALSO, AT: SITE NO.35, SURVEY NO.91, 2ND MAIN ROAD, WHITE ROSE LAYOUT, WARD NO.83, KADUGODI, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560066 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS G.B.A) HAVING OFFICE AT: N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-500001 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVPURA ZONE, BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS G.B.A), HAVING OFFICE AT RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE -560048 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION, BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS G.B.A) BANGALORE-560048 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48491 WP No. 35378 of 2025 4. THE BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (A STATE-OWNED COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING OFFICE AT K R CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 4TH EAST SUB DIVISION, BESCOM, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560066 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU/RESPONDENT NO.3 UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 BEARING NO.BBMP/AEE/WSD/10/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the confirmation order bearing No.§È.¨ÉA.ªÀÄ.¥Á/¸À.PÁ.C/ªÉÊ.G«/10/2025-26 dated 01.07.2025 passed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48491 WP No. 35378 of 2025 by the respondent No.3 under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP Act, 2020'). He has also sought to quash the notice bearing No.¸ÀPÁEA(«)/¸ÀEA(vÁ)/¥ÀÆ4/2025-26/2303 dated 21.07.2025 issued by respondent No.5. 2. (i) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing No.35, Old Khata No.1125/32 presently BBMP Khata No.1294/1203/1125/32 in Sy.Nos.19/1 and 91/1 situated at Pattandur Agrahara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in a gated community named, "White Rose". He claims that after obtaining a plan from the competent authority, he has put up construction. However, the respondent No.3 without noticing the plan sanctioned had issued a notice under Sections 248(1) and 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020 and thereafter, followed it up by an order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. He contends that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have disconnected the electricity to the building constructed by the petitioner based on a communication by the respondent No.3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48491 WP No. 35378 of 2025 (ii) The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the confirmation order passed by the respondent No.3 and he has also prayed to quash the notice issued by respondent No.5. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.3 has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner did not have a building plan sanctioned. He claims that the petitioner has a building plan duly sanctioned and therefore, the proceedings will have to be recommenced by the respondent No.3 in the light of the sanctioned plan produced by the petitioner. He submits that no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. He therefore, prays that the impugned confirmation order passed by the respondent No.3 be set at nought and the notice issued by the respondent No.5 be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to restore the electricity connection to the building constructed by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48491 WP No. 35378 of 2025 2020 was passed on 01.07.2025. The petitioner who was bound to file an appeal before the Chief Commissioner as provided under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, has lied low and has filed a belated petition before this Court. He contends that the petitioner was bound to furnish the plan and other details soon after a notice under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 was issued. He therefore, contends that the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own mistake. 5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that since the building in question is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the electricity connection that was provided to the building was disconnected. He however, contends that if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal before the respondent No.1, steps would be taken to restore the electricity connection. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48491 WP No. 35378 of 2025 7. The petitioner was served with a notice under Sections 248(1) and 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020. If the petitioner had a plan duly sanctioned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, he was bound to place it before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 after noticing the violations viz-a-viz the building byelaws has passed an order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. Therefore, the petitioner cannot approach this Court and claim that he has a building plan sanctioned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he cannot question the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 before this Court on the ground that no useful purpose would be served in approaching the respondent No.1. 8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has to be relegated before respondent No.1. However, since it is stated that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have acted upon the order passed by respondent No.3, interest of justice would be met by directing the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to restore the electricity connection to the building constructed by the petitioner, until the appeal that may be filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 is considered. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48491 WP No. 35378 of 2025 9. In view of the above, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The petitioner is granted fifteen days time to file an appeal before the respondent No.1 challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. (iii) It is made clear that until the petitioner files an appeal within the time stated above, the respondent No.3 shall not take any precipitative action to demolish the construction put up by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner is also put on terms that he shall not put up any further construction on the property in question until the appeal before respondent No.1 is disposed. (v) Subject to the above, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to restore the electricity - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48491 WP No. 35378 of 2025 connection to the building constructed by the petitioner. They are at liberty to take such action as is warranted after disposal of the appeal before respondent No.1. (vi) It is made clear that the protection given above shall not extend beyond fifteen days from today. (vii) It is open for the petitioner to seek interim reliefs before the respondent No.1 in accordance with law. 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 are permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days from today. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1