- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3689 WP No. 1432 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1432 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. PROFESSOR DR. DHIRENDRA V. KUBAIR S/O LATE PROFESSOR DR. V.G. KUBAIR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 81/1, "PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIR'S APARTMENTS" 4TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 CELLULAR PH: 8277644621 EMAIL: dv.kubair@gmail.com 2. MRS. BHAGYASHREE KUBAIR W/O PROFESSOR DR. DHIRENDRA V. KUBAIR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 81/1, "PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIR'S APARTMENTS" 4TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 CELLULAR PH: 8277562621 EMAIL: bagi5576@gmail.com …PETITIONERS (BY PROF. DR. DHIRENDRA V. KUBAI, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (GBA) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER NO.1, N.R. SQUARE, RANI KITTOOR CHENNAMMA CIRCLE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3689 WP No. 1432 of 2026 2. COMMISSIONER BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION (BWCC) GBA 16TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003. 3. JOINT COMMISSIONER, ZONE 2, BWCC-GBA 19TH MAIN RAJAJINAGAR 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU-560 010. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, MALLESHWARAM ZONE, BWCC-GBA 19TH MAIN RAJAJINAGAR 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU-560 010. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION, BWCC-GBA 11TH CROSS EAST PARK ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-J PROVISIONAL ORDER OF DEMOLITION NO.JC/WZ/PR/28/2025-26 DATED 12-01- 2026 ISSUED UNDER 243(3)(C) OF THE GBA ACT 2024 AND RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 5 FROM PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 OLD-BUILDING: PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIR'S APARTMENT, 81/1, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 560003. WHICH, HAS BEEN STANDING IN ITS PRESENT FORM SINCE 2008 (THAT IS PRIOR TO 19.10.2013), TILL THE FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE "AKRAMA-SAKRAMA" CASE IN NAMMA BENGALURU FOUNDATION VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, CA 767-768/2017 ARISING OUT OF THE SLP (C) 0956-0957/2017, BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3689 WP No. 1432 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Sri Pawan Kumar accepts notice for respondents-1 to 5. 2. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "Issue a Writ of certiorarified-mandamus or any other writ, quashing the Annexure-J provisional order of demolition No.JC/WZ/PR/28/2025-26 dated 12.01.2026 issued under 243(3)(c) of the GBA Act 2024 and restrain the respondents Nos.1 to 5 from proceeding against the Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 old-building: PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIR'S APARTMENT 81/1, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560003. Which, has been standing in its present form since 2008 (that is prior to 19.10.2013), till the final adjudication of the "Akrama-Sakrama" case in Namma Bengaluru Foundation vs. The State of Karnataka, CA 767-768/2017 arising out of the SLP (c) 0956-0957/2017, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 3. The apprehension on part of the petitioners is that the reply issued by the petitioners to the Provisional Notice / - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3689 WP No. 1432 of 2026 Order dated 12.1.2026 is not likely to be considered by the respondents and an order would be passed against the petitioners. 4. Whenever a show cause notice is issued and a reply submitted in relation thereto, it would be the bounden duty on part of the authority issuing the show cause notice to consider all the contentions taken up in the reply to the show cause notice. The petitioners cannot have any such apprehension. 5. In that view of the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to take into consideration all the contentions raised by the petitioners in their reply to the provisional notice and then pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the contentions of the petitioners. 6. The other submission made by the petitioner No.1/party- in-person is that the calculation of the deviation is not in accordance with the bylaws. The sketch having been prepared after inspection of the property, the deviation if any having already been ascertained, the methodology of calculation would necessarily have to be in terms of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3689 WP No. 1432 of 2026 applicable building bylaws. As regards which the petitioners cannot have any other apprehension. 7. Respondent No.3 is directed to look into the matter and ascertain if there is any defect in the methodology of calculation of the violation of the set backs in terms of the building bylaws before passing his orders. 8. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE TL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27