- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9642 WP No. 3306 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3306 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. NANDINI CHOUDHARY W/O. AMIN CHARANIYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO. B-102, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK B, LANDS DOWNE APARTMENT, 7TH CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 071. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), NOW GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DOMLUR SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANATARA PALIKE (BBMP), NOW, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, SHANTHINAGAR DIVISION, 9TH FLOOR, PU BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. SRI. NISCHAL. B. A. S/O. MR. ABHAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, LANDSDOWNE APARTMENT, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9642 WP No. 3306 of 2026 NO. B-401/B-301-T, 7TH CROSSM DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 071. 4. SMT. JESAL BHARTESH PATHAK W/O. MR. NISCHAL. B. A., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, LANDSDOWNE APARTMENT, NO. B-401/B-301-T, 7TH CROSSM DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 071. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 22.01.2026 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN APPEAL NO. 92/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the 1st Respondent in Appeal No.92/2025 produced at Annexure-A; b. Consequently, allow the application at Annexure-B in Appeal No.92/2025 and to afford the Petitioner a full and adequate opportunity to be heard in the said appeal and to file her objections, counter-affidavit, and all necessary documents in support thereof; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9642 WP No. 3306 of 2026 c. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to issue to the Petitioner certified copies of the memorandum of appeal, all annexures and the complete file of Appeal No. 92/2025; d. Pass such other directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner being the complainant and being a owner of one of the apartments in the very same building, it is at the behest of the petitioner that action has been taken against respondents no.3 and 4, in pursuance of which provisional order under subsection (1) of Section 248 of the BBMP Act, confirmatory order under subsection (3) of Section 248 of the BBMP Act had been passed and subsequently respondents no.3 and 4 had filed an appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, in which the petitioner also sought to implead himself. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said application has been rejected without - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9642 WP No. 3306 of 2026 any reason. The petitioner being the complainant is required to be heard in an appeal filed under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents no.3 and 4 submits that the petitioner has no locus inasmuch as the building has been constructed 32 years ago. The petitioner has purchased the apartment in the year 2014 and could not have sought to implead himself. Alternatively, he submits that the respondent authorities having all the documents in their possession are well equipped to deal with the appeal filed by respondents no.3 and 4 and the presence of the petitioner is not required in the said proceedings. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused papers. 6. It is not in dispute that it is at the behest of and on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner that action has been taken against respondents no.3 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9642 WP No. 3306 of 2026 4. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in WP No.14985/2024 where a mandamus had been issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Subsequently, the action has been taken by the official respondent against respondents no.3 and 4 which has now been challenged by respondents no.3 and 4 by filing an appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. In such a situation when the petitioner was the complainant on the basis of which complaint, action has been taken, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be said to be a person without any locus in the matter more so when the petitioner is also a resident of the very same building and not a third party. 7. Insofar as the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 is concerned, the said order reads as under: “Case called. Appellant files objections to the impleading petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9642 WP No. 3306 of 2026 Considering the arguments the impleading petition is rejected. For arguments call on 6/2/26.” 8. A perusal of the said order indicates that there is absolutely no application of mind by respondent No.1 in respect of the said petition/application. It is but required that a quasi-judicial authority like respondent No.1 while dealing with any matter is required to pass orders accompanied by reasons which could be considered in any proceedings challenging said order. If orders are passed without any reasons, the basis of the said reasons cannot be understood nor challenged in a proceedings. 9. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed; ii) A certiorari is issued. The order dated 22.1.2026 passed in Appeal No.92/2025 by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9642 WP No. 3306 of 2026 iii) The impleading petition is restored to file. Matter is remitted for fresh consideration to respondent no.1 to consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv) Needless to say, until orders are passed on the impending petition/application, the appeal cannot be considered on merits. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 57