- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29091 WP No. 30634 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 30634 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B.S. GOPINATH S/O K.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.119, WARD NO.23 BEHIND JAMIA MASJID DODDAPET, CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALAPURA -563 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSE SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BANGALORE ROAD CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -563 125. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 03.07.2024 PASSED IN CMP-LBPAS-10066/21- 22/BP BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-M AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT THE EXTENSION OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND LICENSE AND ETC. Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29091 WP No. 30634 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 is said to be owner of the site bearing No.6-1-203-18 having khatha No.1056/994 situated in Ward No.6, I Division, K.R. Extension, Chintamani. He had applied for plan sanction for construction of a building on his site. The same was sanctioned to him by the respondent. However, he was not in a position to put up necessary construction within the stipulated period in the plan sanctioned. Hence, he made an application for renewal of the same and the same was also granted. Again, he failed to put up necessary construction. Hence, he has applied for renewal of the same. The same has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision to grant further renewal. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned endorsement dated 03.07.2024 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-M to the writ petition, wherein such extension of renewal has been rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29091 WP No. 30634 of 2024 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the property concerned. For economic reason, though he intended to put up construction he could not do so. Hence, he has applied for renewal of the licence granted in his favour for the second time. There is no provision in law which prohibits such a request. Under the said circumstances, the respondent is bound to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has given only a representation, he has not submitted a plan in this regard. He further submits that if a plan were to be submitted, his request will be considered in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is willing to submit the necessary plan. 5. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The impugned endorsement dated 03.07.2024 passed by the respondent (vide Annexure-M to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29091 WP No. 30634 of 2024 ii. The petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh request to the respondent along with the proposed plan; iii. If submitted, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondent within a period of eight weeks thereafter; iv. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG