- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30186 WP No. 23641 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 23641 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. P.SUSHEELA, W/O SRI. R.B.VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 8TH CROSS ROAD MALLASANDRA MAIN ROAD MALLASANDRA, T.DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVARAJU H.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER DASARAHALLI ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) BANGALORE-560 057. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) NEAR HOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL RAVINDRA NAGARA, DASARAHALLI DIVISION BENGALURU-560 015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30186 WP No. 23641 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER, DATED NIL BEARING NO.AEE/SSB/PO/05/2023-24 UNDER SECTION 248(1) AT ANNEXURE-E, THE ORDER DATED NIL BEARING NO.AEE/SSB/PO/05/2023-24 UNDER SECTION 248 (2) AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND CONFIRMATION ORDER BEARING NO.Z.C. /DZ/UAC/PSR/15/2025-26, DATED 27/05/2025, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 248 (3) AND 356 (1) OF THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, 2020 AT ANNEXURE-K IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner has preferred Appeal No.121/2025 under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagaa Palike Act, 2020 before respondent no.1 against the order passed by respondent no.2 regarding the demolition of certain constructions put up by the petitioner on the property said to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30186 WP No. 23641 of 2025 be owned by her. The appeal is filed on 22.04.2025. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay as well as an application for stay of the order passed by respondent no.2. It is submitted that inspite of filing the said appeal way back on 22.04.2025 the applications filed by the petitioner have not been considered so far and consequently there is a threat of demolition of the property. 2. It is further submitted that petitioner has got a good case on merits and the fact situation does not warrant demolition of the alleged deviations as ordered by respondent no.2 and if given an opportunity, the petitioner would show the same before respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the balance of convenience lies with the petitioner and if an interim order is not granted by respondent no.1 against the order passed by respondent no.2 and if the alleged deviations are demolished, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. It is further submitted that after affording her an opportunity of hearing, if a decision is taken to remove the deviations, if any, petitioner is always willing to oblige the same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30186 WP No. 23641 of 2025 3. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if an order is passed restraining the respondents from precipitating to the matter against the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by respondent no.2, till respondent no.1 takes a decision upon the appeal/applications filed by the petitioner. 4. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The respondents shall not precipitate the matter against the petitioner till a suitable decision is taken by respondent no.1 upon the Appeal No.121/2025 filed by the petitioner or on the applications filed along with the appeal. (ii) It is hereby clarified that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and it is for respondent no.1 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law based on the materials available before him. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30186 WP No. 23641 of 2025 (iii)The petitioner shall not put up any additional construction on the property till a decision is taken by respondent no.1 in this regard. (iv)The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20