- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13559 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S TEAM VIEW DEVELOPERS A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, REGD. UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 O/AT, NO.48, 3RD FLOOR, HITANANDA 2, LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS PARTNER, MR. B.R.VINOD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O B C RANGARAJU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADV. FOR SRI. KIRAN J., ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, VIDHANAVEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 3. JOINT DIRECTOR (URBAN PLANNING - NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 4. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA OFFICE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1, SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3, SRI. K.S. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADV. FOR R4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 08.12.2023 BEARING NO. BBMP/ADDL.DIR/JD CENTRAL/LP/0007/2019-20 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a developer, assailing the endorsement dated 08.12.2023 bearing No. BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD CENTRAL/LP/0007/ 2019-20, issued by the respondent—Bruhat Bengaluru - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). By the said endorsement, the petitioner's application seeking issuance of Occupancy Certificate has been kept in abeyance. Aggrieved by the inaction and the issuance of the impugned endorsement, the petitioner is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue an Occupancy Certificate in respect of the property bearing No. 308/256, situated at Pattanduru Agarahara Village, Whitefield Main Road, Kadugodi, Mahadevapura Zone, Bengaluru. 2. The matter was heard at length. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced submissions in support of the writ petition. Learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 (BBMP) and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 also made their respective submissions. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is a real estate developer who claims to have completed the construction of a commercial building on the schedule property bearing No. 308/256, located in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 Pattanduru Agarahara Village, Whitefield Main Road, Kadugodi, within the jurisdiction of Mahadevapura Zone, Bengaluru. The construction is stated to have been undertaken strictly in accordance with the sanctioned building plan and the building license granted by the BBMP. Upon completion of the construction on 27.10.2023, the petitioner submitted an application addressed to the Joint Director of Town Planning seeking issuance of an Occupancy Certificate. However, instead of considering the application on merits, the BBMP issued the impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2023, stating that the petitioner's application is kept in abeyance on the ground that the records pertaining to the petitioner's file have been seized by respondent No.4, and therefore, the matter could not be processed further. 4. Upon hearing the respective learned counsel and after perusal of the records made available by the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has completed the construction of the commercial complex in accordance with the sanctioned plan and building license issued by the BBMP. The records further indicate that the application for Occupancy Certificate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 was duly submitted on 27.10.2023. It is also evident that no adverse communication has been issued to the petitioner with regard to any deviation or violation of building norms. The only ground cited for withholding the Occupancy Certificate is that the petitioner's file is presently under seizure by respondent No.4. This Court is of the prima facie view that such administrative circumstance, by itself, cannot be a valid justification for indefinitely keeping the statutory application for Occupancy Certificate in abeyance, particularly when there is no material placed on record to show any violation of the sanctioned plan or building regulations by the petitioner. 5. Rule 5.6.1(a) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Building Bye-laws, 2003 mandates that any person who completes the construction of a building in conformity with the sanctioned building plan and the building license must obtain an Occupancy Certificate prior to occupying or permitting occupation of the premises. The Rule not only enables the owner or developer to seek such a certificate but also imposes a statutory obligation on the competent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 authority to process such applications in a time-bound and lawful manner. 6. The said Rule further provides that the application for issuance of an Occupancy Certificate must be accompanied by a certificate in Schedule VIII, duly certified by a registered Architect, Engineer, or Supervisor. Upon receipt of such an application, the competent authority is required to conduct a physical inspection of the premises and thereafter pass appropriate orders either granting or rejecting the certificate. Crucially, this entire process must be concluded within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application, and a formal intimation is to be issued to the applicant. These timelines are not discretionary, they are embedded in the Rule to ensure accountability, transparency, and timely administrative action. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has, along with the application dated 27.10.2023, submitted all requisite supporting documents including approved building drawings, completion certificate, structural stability certificate, photographs of the completed structure, acknowledgment of fire clearance application, tax paid receipts, and the Katha - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 certificate. The petitioner who has made significant investment in developing the commercial complex has suffered financial prejudice owing to the inaction of respondent-BBMP, which has refused to discharge its statutory duty of considering the application. The only reason cited for keeping the application in abeyance is that the file pertaining to the property has been seized by respondent No.4 – the Lokayukta , pursuant to the registration of FIR in Crime No.15/2022. The BBMP has issued an endorsement stating that until the seized records are retrieved, it is unable to process the petitioner's application. 8. The records further reveal that the petitioner, in an effort to facilitate the administrative process, made an independent application before the court, seeking release of the seized file pertaining to the property in question. Surprisingly, this application was rejected on the premise that the records seized under P.F. No.38/2022 are BBMP’s official records and do not belong to the petitioner. It was further held that the pendency of the petitioner’s application for occupancy certificate does not entitle the petitioner to seek release of such records. Though it was suggested that BBMP could have moved - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 an application for release of the file, the same was not done. Instead, the responsibility was unfairly shifted onto the petitioner, reflecting a misplaced and evasive approach by both authorities. 9. When a query was posed to respondent No.4 as to the relevance of the petitioner's file in the context of Crime No.15/2022, counsel appearing for the Lokayukta merely submitted that instructions would be obtained. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has already furnished all relevant documents evidenced at Annexure-B which form the basis of their application. In such a scenario, there was no valid justification for the BBMP to withhold decision-making, merely on the pretext that the original file remains seized. The statutory obligation to act cannot be indefinitely postponed based on external contingencies, especially when the documents necessary for scrutiny are already available with the BBMP or have been submitted afresh by the applicant. 10. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the BBMP ought to have acted upon the materials furnished and passed appropriate orders under Rule 5.6.1(a) of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 the BBMP Bye-laws, 2003. Petitioner asserts that construction of the commercial complex has been completed in compliance with the approved building plan and statutory requirements. The petitioner has submitted the requisite completion and stability certificates endorsed by a registered architect. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that the seizure of the petitioner's file by the Lokayukta in connection with Crime No.15/2022 has no direct or proximate nexus with the adjudication of the petitioner’s request for occupancy certificate. The BBMP had two legitimate courses of action available: (i) Either rely upon the set of documents already furnished by the petitioner in support of the application, or (ii) Procure certified copies of the seized records from the court in CR.15/2022. Yet, rather than exercising either option, BBMP chose the path of administrative inertia, resulting in undue hardship to the petitioner. 11. It is a settled position of law that statutory authorities cannot abdicate their responsibilities under the cloak of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 technicalities or procedural excuses. The BBMP, being the competent authority under the BBMP Act and the relevant Building Bye-laws, is bound to act in accordance with the statutory mandate. It is not open to the BBMP to indefinitely defer action on the application for occupancy certificate by citing pendency of seizure, especially when the petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements. Any such conduct amounts to dereliction of duty, and adversely affects citizens who are otherwise entitled to lawful relief. Moreover, such inaction has serious financial implications for a developer who has invested considerable resources in lawful construction and is unable to operationalize the premises due to the BBMP’s failure to discharge its duties. 12. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case warrants immediate intervention. The BBMP is directed to consider the petitioner's application for issuance of Occupancy Certificate in accordance with Rule 5.6.1(a) of the BBMP Bye-laws, 2003 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The BBMP may, at its discretion, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 either rely upon the documents already furnished by the petitioner or take necessary steps to obtain certified copies of the relevant file from respondent No.4. However, under no circumstances can the statutory obligation be kept in abeyance, particularly when the applicant has demonstrated due compliance with all required norms. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent–BBMP is directed to consider the petitioner’s application for issuance of Occupancy Certificate, along with the supporting documents enclosed at Annexure-B, and shall conduct its scrutiny strictly in accordance with Rule 5.6.1(a) of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003. The BBMP shall pass appropriate orders after examining the documents furnished by the petitioner and completing the necessary physical inspection, as mandated. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23512 WP No. 13559 of 2025 iii. In the event respondent No.2 (BBMP) is of the considered view that the original records pertaining to the petitioner's property, presently seized by respondent No.4 – Lokayukta, are absolutely necessary for deciding the application, liberty is reserved to obtain certified copies of the said file from the court in Cr.No.15/2022. Upon obtaining such certified records, the BBMP shall proceed to pass orders on the petitioner’s application in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such certified copies. iv. Respondent–BBMP shall initiate and complete the process of obtaining certified copies of the relevant file from respondent No.4 – Lokayukta within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The entire process shall be conducted expeditiously, without causing any further delay to the petitioner’s legitimate request. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SSD, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11