- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39780 WP No. 51927 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 51927 OF 2019 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: SRI AJEETH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O GIRIVASAN A P RESIDING AT NO.100 `RAMESH NIVAAS', 12TH CROSS RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ENQUIRES-1) KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.1.8.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39780 WP No. 51927 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking quashing the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the respondent in No.Complaint / Upalok/BCD-1230/2018/ARLO-1 (Annexure-F). 2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the constructed building on land bearing Site No.7, and portion of Site No.8 of Horamavu village, Bangalore. It is stated in the petition that, the construction has been made pursuant to the sanctioned plan accorded by the competent Authority. It is further stated that one Pragathi K Venkatesh Babu, who claims to be the RTI activist has lodged a complaint to the Sub- Division office of the Brihat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short `BBMP') stating about the construction that has been made by the petitioner in the schedule property. It is also stated that the complainant has withdrawn her complaint as per letter dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure-B). In the meanwhile, the respondent herein has initiated action against the officials of the BBMP, Bengaluru in proceedings No.Complaint:Upalok/BCD-1230/ 2018/DRE-3 (Annexure-C). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39780 WP No. 51927 of 2019 The BBMP by letter dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure-D), intimated the respondent that appropriate action will be taken in the event if there is any illegal construction that has been made by the petitioner herein. It is also to be noted that as per Annexure-F dated 01.08.2019, the respondent has addressed a letter to the BBMP with regard to further action to be taken with regard to the illegal construction that may be made by the petitioner, and the same has to be reported to the respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Dalwai Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Sri. Dalwai Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the complaint (Annexure-A) made against the petitioner has been withdrawn by the complainant as per Annexure-B, and therefore, as there is no illegal construction that has been made by the petitioner in the site referred to above, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the direction issued by the respondent as per Annexure-F requires - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39780 WP No. 51927 of 2019 to be set aside in this petition. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner herein has filed Appeal No.223/2023 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against the action that has been taken by the BBMP under Section 308 of Karnataka Municipalities Corporations Act, 1976 (for short `Act'), and the action of the BBMP has been stayed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, he submitted that Annexure-F does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as there is violation of the sanctioned plan by the petitioner herein, action has been taken by the BBMP and perusal of Annexure-F would indicate that the report has been sought from the officers of the BBMP with regard to the illegal construction, if any, made by the petitioner herein. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition does not survive for consideration. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, one Sri Pragathi K Venkatesh - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39780 WP No. 51927 of 2019 Babu has lodged a complaint to the BBMP stating that the petitioner herein is making construction in violation of the sanctioned plan in the aforementioned site. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the said complaint has been withdrawn by the complainant as per Annexure-B. In the meanwhile, a complaint, which has been lodged before the respondent herein, has been considered by the respondent by issuing notice to the officers of the BBMP, and in this regard, the BBMP vide Annexure- E to the writ petition have stated that, the action has been taken against the illegal construction which has been made in the site referred to above. 7. In the backdrop of these aspects, as the petitioner herein has filed an Appeal No.223/2023 before the KAT against the action taken by the BBMP under Section 308 of the Act, 1976, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent cannot be permitted to monitor further action in the matter in view of the interim order passed by the KAT in Appeal No.223/2023. Hence, the writ petition requires to be allowed by quashing the order dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent herein. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39780 WP No. 51927 of 2019 Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the respondent in No.Complaint/Upalok/BCD-1230/2018/ ARLO- 1(Annexure-F) is hereby set aside. However, it is open for the respondent to revive its action in furtherance of the outcome of the Appeal No.223/2023 preferred by the petitioner herein which is pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55