- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27906 WP No. 16771 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16771 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SUNIL KUMAR DASARATHAN SON OF DASARATHAN P AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 218 5th 'C' MAIN ROAD, 2nd BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 043 REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, C SURESHA REDDY, SON OF LATE NANJA REDDY C AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 218 5th ‘C’ MAIN ROAD, 2nd BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU 560 001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27906 WP No. 16771 of 2026 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER MARUTHI SEVANAGAR, SUBDIVISION, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560 033. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MARUTHI SEVANAGAR SUBDIVISION, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560 033. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN REV. APL. NO. 420/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CH-1) AT BENGALURU AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2026 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CH-1) AT BENGALURU IN REV. APL. NO. 420/2019 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner's appeal in Appeal No.420/2019 is pending on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. This is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27906 WP No. 16771 of 2026 an appeal that is filed under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 [for short, 'the Act'] calling in question the Confirmation Order under Section 321 (3) thereof. The petitioner has called in question the Tribunal's order dated 27.03.2026 [Annexure-A]. The Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with relevant Regulations to amend the Appeal Memorandum to raise additional grounds. 2. The petitioner proposes to amend the Appeal Memorandum on the ground that the authorities could not have deferred consideration of an application filed for modification of the plan. The Tribunal has rejected the application by reasons that read as under: This application is filed by one C. Suresh Reddy, who is not an appellant. He contends that the appellant had executed a registered GPA dated 16.10.2019 authorising him to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27906 WP No. 16771 of 2026 represent the appellant in this case. However, the said C. Suresh Reddy who has filed the affidavit along with the application has not filed any Vakalath or has not produced the GPA alleged to be executed by the appellant herein. Under these circumstances, the application filed by said C.Suresh Reddy who is not an appellant or has not appeared on behalf of the appellant is not maintainable. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative. 3. Sri Abhinav Ramanand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal could not have rejected the application on this short ground because an application is filed for leave to prosecute the appeal through a Power of Attorney and that application is still pending. The learned counsel emphasizes that the present application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the GPA. Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27906 WP No. 16771 of 2026 4. This Court is of the considered view that for complete adjudication, the Tribunal should not only consider the present application along with the application filed to prosecute the appeal through the Power of Attorney for complete adjudication. The rejection of this application while the other application for leave is pending leads to a truncated decision as against a complete adjudication. Hence, the petition is allowed quashing the Tribunal's impugned order dated 27.03.2026 [Annexure-A] restoring the application for reconsideration by the Tribunal in the light of this Court's order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr