- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28902 WP No. 22363 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22363 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHANKARAPPA .C S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 86/A BANK OFFICER'S LAYOUT HBCS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DODDAKALLASANDRA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN .J.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560062. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, UTTARAHALLI SUB DIVISION OFFICE OF BBMP NEAR SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28902 WP No. 22363 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE NO.SA.KA.A./U.U.VI./PR/211/2025-26 DATED 17.7.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 17.07.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 evidenced at Annexure-E followed by the notice affixed on petitioner’s building evidenced at Annexure-F1 thereby directing the petitioner to ensure that the businesses are forthwith closed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The case on hand revolves around a short point. Petitioner asserts that he is the owner of the petition schedule property and he has constructed a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28902 WP No. 22363 of 2025 commercial complex after securing licence and approved building plan way back in 2011. Petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the affixture of notice on the petitioner’s premises by the officials of BBMP on the premise that it is an unauthorised construction and now they are insisting to stop the businesses which is evidenced from the photographs at Annexure-F. 4. Upon a careful perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that although the respondent- authorities are well within their rights to initiate and conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, the mode and manner in which they have sought to enforce compliance by the petitioner appears prima facie arbitrary and excessive. The issuance of the show-cause notice dated 17.07.2025, which is placed on record as Annexure–E, may be legally permissible, but the consequential direction to the petitioner to ensure closure of ongoing businesses in the commercial complex is disproportionate, particularly at this preliminary stage. Such an action has the effect of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28902 WP No. 22363 of 2025 penalising the petitioner and the tenants even before the conclusion of the enquiry. 5. The petitioner, for his part, has asserted that he had obtained the necessary building plan approval as far back as in the year 2011, which, if substantiated, may have a bearing on the legality of the present proceedings. It is trite that when a citizen claims to be in lawful possession of valid approvals, no presumption of illegality can be drawn without affording a fair opportunity of hearing and due verification by the competent authority. 6. Though this Court is not inclined to interfere with or quash the show-cause notice itself at this stage, as it forms part of a due process initiated by the respondents, it is equally crucial to ensure that the process is not vitiated by undue haste or coercive measures which may cause irreparable hardship. Therefore, till such time as the enquiry is conducted and concluded in accordance with law, the tenants lawfully inducted by the petitioner cannot - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28902 WP No. 22363 of 2025 be restrained from carrying on their commercial activities in the subject premises. 7. Any precipitate action or coercive measure without completing the statutory process, including those envisaged under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents are, therefore, expected to proceed strictly in accordance with law, and to ensure that the enquiry is concluded expeditiously and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and third parties in occupation of the premises. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following with certain directions: ORDER i) The writ petition is partly allowed. ii) The petitioner is at liberty to submit his objections and contest the show-cause notice dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure–E), by filing a comprehensive reply along with all supporting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28902 WP No. 22363 of 2025 documents. Such reply shall be submitted within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iii) The respondent-authorities shall consider the petitioner’s reply and documents on merits and conclude the enquiry initiated under the show-cause notice strictly in accordance with law. iv) Pending conclusion of the said enquiry, the officials of the BBMP shall not interfere with the commercial activities carried out by the tenants in the subject premises. v) The respondents are further directed not to take any coercive steps or initiate action for closure of business in the premises unless and until the procedure prescribed under Section 248 of the BBMP Act is strictly followed and due process of law is complied with. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1