- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34656 WP No. 19063 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19063 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: C P RAVINDRA S/O PADMANABHA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. FLAT NO.001. GROUND FLOOR, 13/5 OLD NO.137. ADARSH RESIDENCY, 27TH CROSS, 3rd D BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST, BANGALORE 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY NR SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH ZONE, BENGALURU) BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34656 WP No. 19063 of 2026 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BBMP BENGALURU SOUTH 9TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. 4. M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS. PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO. 101, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX, 22ND MAIN ROAD, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. REP BY ITS PARTNER, S.E.E. MANJUNATH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M C JAYAKIRTHI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE DATED 06/06/2026 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.50/2026 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER/APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -A; II) ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 151 OF CPC SEEKING IMPLEADING HIM AS RESPONDENT NO.3 IN APPEAL NO.50/2026 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER/APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34656 WP No. 19063 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner's grievance is with the summary rejection of an impleading application in Appeal No.50/2026 pending on the file of the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority, Bengaluru [the Appellate Authority]. The petitioner’s case is that the fourth respondent [the appellant] has completed the construction contrary to the sanctioned plan. 2. The proceedings are commenced under the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ‘the BBMP Act’] for deviations from the sanctioned plan during the pendency of an interim order granted by the civil Court in a suit in O.S.No.26137/2023 [on the file of the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru1]. The commencement of such proceedings is called in question in W.P.No.9935/2026 [LB-BMP], 1 This suit is later withdrawn. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34656 WP No. 19063 of 2026 which is disposed of with liberty to the fourth respondent to avail the alternative appellate remedy, and it is only in these circumstances that the fourth respondent has filed the appeal. 3. Sri Manjunath B.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings under the erstwhile BBMP Act are begun at the petitioner’s instance and therefore he would be both a proper and a necessary party but the impleading application is rejected summarily without even extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that the appeal is scheduled to be listed on 17.07.2026 and that if this Court does not intervene at this stage, the proceedings could be completed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to justify his participation in the appeal proceedings. 4. Sri M.C. Jayakeerthi, the learned counsel who accepts notice for the first to third respondents, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34656 WP No. 19063 of 2026 cannot deny that the petitioner ought to have been extended with an opportunity of hearing before the impleading application could be rejected. This Court finds force in the petitioner's case that the impleading application could not have been rejected without an opportunity, and this is more so because the impleading application is rejected by a one-line order. Hence, the following. ORDER The petition is allowed in-part quashing the Order dated 06.06.2026 [Annexure-A] only insofar as it relates to the rejection of the petitioner's impleading application restoring such application for re-consideration leaving open all questions to be considered therein. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr