Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16521 (KAR)

DR. B. R. MAHENDRA v. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF BBMP

WA/1420/2025 · 2026-02-17

D K Singh, S Rachaiah

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9999-DB WA No. 1420 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1428 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1420 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 1428 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) IN WA No. 1420/2025 BETWEEN: 1. DR. B. R. MAHENDRA S/O LATE BELURAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 301/10, 36TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF BBMP BANGALORE HEGGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP. MAHALAKSHMI PROVISIONAL DEPOT., HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 091 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9999-DB WA No. 1420 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1428 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING WEST BHASKAR PARK SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560020 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GANDHINAGAR SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560009. 4. M/S EAGLESIGHT TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REG. OFFICE AT NO. 22, DK AND JK. N.S. IYENGAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR SRI. HOSPALYA LOKESH SUNIL KUMAR S/O G. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S.SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16/07/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.5106/2025, INSOFAR AS IT IMPOSES EXEMPLARY COSTS OF RS.1,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH ONLY) PAYABLE TO THE ADVOCATES CLERKS WELFARE FUND, ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9999-DB WA No. 1420 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1428 of 2025 IN WA NO. 1428/2025 BETWEEN: 1. DR. B MAHENDRA S/O LATE BELURAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 301/10, 36TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560011. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S EAGLESIGHT TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REG. OFFICE AT NO. 22, DK AND JK, N.S. IYENGAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR SRI. HOSPALYA LOKESH SUNIL KUMAR S/O G. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING WEST, BHASKAR PARK, SHESHADRIPURA, BENGALURU-560020. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GANDHINAGARA SUB DIVISION, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9999-DB WA No. 1420 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1428 of 2025 BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARAPALIKE, GANDHI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560009. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KASHINATH.J.D., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.8253/2025 DATED:16.07.2025, ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. These intra Court appeals have been filed impugning the common judgment and order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8253/2025 c/w W.P.No.5106/2025. 2. W.P.No.8253/2025 is filed by M/s.Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited (respondent No.4 herein) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company) whereas, W.P.No.5106/2025 is filed one Dr. B.R.Mahendra (appellant herein). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9999-DB WA No. 1420 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1428 of 2025 3. In W.P.No.8253/2025, the Company has called in question the demolition order passed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 in Appeal No.BBMP/231/2024. In the said appeal, the appellant herein has filed an application seeking to come on record and contest the demolition proceedings. However, the said impleadment application was kept pending and therefore, the appellant filed W.P.No.5106/2025 seeking a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider his application for impleadment. 3. It was stated before the learned Single Judge that the impleading application filed by the petitioner/appellant has been allowed by the Appellate Authority on 15.03.2025 and W.P.No.5106/2025 has been rendered infructuous. The learned Single Judge, however, noticed that the petitioner has neither any right, title, interest in respect of the property in question nor is he an adjoining owner. It has also been noticed that the petitioner had initiated multiple proceedings against the Company before various forums. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge held that the presence of the petitioner was wholly unnecessary for proper - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9999-DB WA No. 1420 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1428 of 2025 adjudication of the appeal proceedings. It was further held that the order passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the impleading application of the petitioner was a result of non- application of mind and legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 15.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the impleadment application was set aside by the learned Single Judge and W.P.No.5106/2025 was dismissed imposing exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner. W.P.No.8253/2025 filed by the Company came to be allowed. Against the order passed in these writ petitions, the appellant has filed the aforesaid appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had already paid the costs imposed by the writ Court and he would not like to take it back and requests that the adverse remarks made against the appellant may be expunged. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, we expunge the adverse remarks made against the appellant in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9999-DB WA No. 1420 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1428 of 2025 6. With the above observations, the writ appeals stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4