- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39043 WP No. 29422 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 29422 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. H. GOPALAKRISHNA AITHAL, S/O H ANANTH AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.34, 2ND CROSS, RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE - 560 018. 2. H. RADHAKRISHNA AITHAL, S/O H ANANTH AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.34, 2ND CROSS, RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE - 560 018. 3. SRI. NARASIMHA AITHAL, S/O H ANANTH AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO 1166/A, ANTHA PARVA, 3RD C MAIN, GIRINAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 085. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, WEST ZONE, MALLESHWARAM, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39043 WP No. 29422 of 2025 BANGALORE - 560 003. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, 18TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR ZONE, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARPALIKE, BANGALURU - 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 07-07-2025 BEARING NO ZC/RRN/PO./289/2025-26 PASSED UNDER 248(3), OF THE BBMP ACT BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the Orders passed under Sections 248(3) read with Section 356(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'BBMP Act') the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39043 WP No. 29422 of 2025 2. Admittedly, the petitioners are having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no sittings of respondent No.1 because of which he is not in a position to file the appeal and hence, the writ petition is filed. 3. Per Contra, learned counsel for B.B.M.P justifies the impugned order and he further submits that if petitioners were to file an appeal the same would be decided in accordance in law as expeditiously as possible. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they have put up construction in accordance with law and any violation can be regularized. However, the impugned order is passed, directing the petitioners to remove certain alleged deviations. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be met, if the petitioners are permitted to invoke the alternative remedy by providing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39043 WP No. 29422 of 2025 certain interim protect. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 253 of the Act. The said appeal shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today. ii. The respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter against the petitioners till the Appellate Authority takes a decision in respect of the property of the petitioners, provided petitioners prefer an appeal within four weeks. iii. The petitioners are prohibited from putting up additional construction on the property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39043 WP No. 29422 of 2025 iv. It is hereby made clear that no opinion has been expressed on merits and it is for the Appellate Authority to take appropriate decision in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. v. The respondents are given liberty to proceed in accordance with the impugned orders, if the petitioners fails to prefer an appeal within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9