- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52713-DB WA No. 293 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI RAVINDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.361, 9TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560072 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. CHANDPASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ROOM NO.321, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001, 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52713-DB WA No. 293 of 2025 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIAL DIVISION, BBMP, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIAL DIVISION, BBMP, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (REVENUE AND ADVERTISEMENTS) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1 SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.3875/2025 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52713-DB WA No. 293 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.02.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3875/2025 (LB/BMP). 2. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning a demand notice dated 04.02.2025 [impugned demand notice] calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of `12,00,90,694/- (Rupees Twelve crores Ninety thousand Six hundred and Ninety four only). It was the appellant's case in the petition that the said demand had been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice preceeded the issuance of the said demand. Further, the appellant was not granted any opportunity to be heard before imposing the said demand. 3. The learned Single Judge, apparently, accepted the said contention and therefore, directed that the impugned demand notice be treated as a show cause notice. The appellant was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52713-DB WA No. 293 of 2025 provided time to file a reply to the impugned demand notice treating the same as a show cause notice and the respondent [BBMP] was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within the time stipulated. 4. None of the parties are aggrieved by the said direction. 5. The present appeal is filed, essentially, impugning the additional direction issued by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of `6.00 [Rupees six crores] within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, failing which the BBMP was at liberty to enforce the impugned demand notice. 6. The impugned order does not indicate any basis for issuing the said additional direction to deposit of `6.00 crores [Rupees six crores]. In our view, the impugned order is unsustainable. The impugned order is also not sustainable for the reason that the learned Single Judge had also directed that the BBMP would be at liberty to enforce the impugned demand notice, if the said condition was not complied with. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52713-DB WA No. 293 of 2025 7. Plainly, if the impugned demand notice is found to had been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same would be required to be set aside as being void. Having accepted the contention that the impugned demand notice was not preceded by a show cause notice and on the aforesaid conclusion directing that the impugned demand notice be treated as a show cause notice, it would be erroneous to permit implementation of the same. 8. In view of the above, the direction to the appellant to deposit a sum of `6.00 crores (Rupees six crores) as set out in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, is set aside. The appellant is at liberty to file a reply to the impugned demand notice within a period of three weeks from date. In the event, the same is filed, BBMP shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard. We clarify that nothing stated in this order should be construed as an expression or opinion on the merits of the dispute. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52713-DB WA No. 293 of 2025 9. Since the BBMP does not exist and is now merged with the Greater Bengaluru Authority [GBA], the impugned demand notice shall be considered as having been issued by the GBA and the appellant's objection to the said demand notice be furnished to the GBA and a final decision with regard to the demand shall also be taken by the concerned official of the GBA. 10. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid observations. 11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23