- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30721 WP No. 18607 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18607 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: S S PROPERTIES PVT LTD PRATHAM NAKSHATHRA OLD MBS ROAD KINNIMULKI UDUPI DISTRICT 576101 REPRSENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SOMANATH SHETTY S/O SEETHARAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYANTHA POOJARY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI 576101. 2. SHEKAR HAVANJE AGED ABOUT MAJOR NO. 3-131B HAVANJE VILLAGE AND POST Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30721 WP No. 18607 of 2026 BRAHMAVARA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 576124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAYANTHA POOJARY., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE DEMOLITION NOTICE DATED 04.05.2026 BEARING NO. CMCUDP- DELOBP/62/2025-CMCU (E-165004) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE- A. 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 grievance is with the first respondent’s Order dated 04.05.2026 [Annexure-A] under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 [for short, ‘the Act’]. Sri Jayanth Poojary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, proposes to elaborate on why this Court must interfere with this Order but the learned counsel cannot dispute that this Order is after - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30721 WP No. 18607 of 2026 the Provisional Order. As such, the impugned Order will be under Section 187 (9) (c) of the Act alleging that the petitioner’s construction violates the requirement on maintaining the building line. The first respondent has referred to Section 187 (9) of the Act without mentioning that it is under sub- clause (c) thereof. This Court is of the view that the petitioner's remedy would be as against a Confirmation Order under Section 187 (9)(c) of the Act. Therefore, this petition must be disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, but there must be some interregnum protection for a reasonable period so that the petitioner's remedy under Section 343 of the Act is not rendered nugatory. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner to avail remedy under Section 343 of the Act seeking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30721 WP No. 18607 of 2026 exclusion for the time spent in prosecuting this petition. [B] The first respondent is called upon to defer demolition for a period of four [4] weeks from today, and it is observed that if the petitioner avails such remedy as now permitted, the authority shall consider any request for interim order on merits without being influenced by the interim arrangement that is provided by this Court in this order. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr