Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 1680 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS SONIYA KARTHIKEYAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O MR KARTHIKEYAN, R/AT NO 333, VIMALA NILAYAM, OMBR LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS, BANASAWADI BENGALURU - 560 043
2. MRS S VIMALA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O MR T G SANJEEVI PARTNER OF M/S PS4 PRO-LIVING HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 13/A, Digitally signed by VIDYA G R REGAL BUILDING, SPICE GARDEN, Location: HIGH COURT OF SILVER SPRINGS LAYOUT, KARNATAKA MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 037
3. MR KIDAMBI SURESH RANGARAJAN AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O K V VEDANTA CHARY R/AT 182, PHASE - PALM MEADOWS, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE - 560 066
4. MR YEDDALAPALLI CHANDRA SEKHAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O MR Y SUBBAIAH R/AT NO 9/2, SESHANNAGARI PALLI, POLI, CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 126
5. MR BIJJALA SANDEEP KUMAR S/O MR BIJJALA HARANATH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO 7-70, 7-72, GANDHI BAZAR MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 523 316
6. MR SIDDAMURTHI RAVINDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O MR SIDDAMURTHY NARAYANAREDDY RESIDING AT NO. 2-45, PAPIREDDY PALLI RAMPADU CHENNAVARAN, CUDDAPAH ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 193
7. MR SIDDU POLI REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O MR DUGGI REDDY SIDDU, R/AT NO. 9/201, REDDY NAGAR MAIN ROAD RANGASAMUDRAM, PORUMAMILLA, CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 193
8. MR MUKESH KUMAR PATWARI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE SRI GIRIDHARI LAL PATAWARI R/AT NO. 145, PENTAGON, PASSIFLORA, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, SARJAPURA BANGALORE - 56 2125
9. SRI SHIVAPRAKASH VEMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE SUBBARAYUDU VEMA R/AT VILLA NO 10, ALLIANCE 10 DOWNING KANNAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 067 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 01
2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560 048
3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560 048
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHADEVAPURA SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560 048 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHAITHRAVATHI B S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
a) QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDERS DATED 27/10/2023 BEARING NO. BBMP/SNNY/(MV)/PO/35/23-24, NO. BBMP/ SNNY/(MV)/PO/51/23-24, NO. BBMP/SNNY/(MV)/PO/44/23-24, NO. BBMP/SNNY/(MV)/PO/39/23-24, PASSED BY THE R3 UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF BBMP ACT IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K TO K3;
b) QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDERS DATED 08/12/2023 BEARING NO. BBMP/SNNY/(MV)/PO/52/23-24, NO. BBMP/ SNNY/ (MV)/PO/51/23-24, NO. BBMP/SNNY/(MV)/PO/30/23- 24, NO. BBMP/SNNY/(MV)/PO/48/23-24, NO. BBMP/ SNNY/ (MV)/PO/44/23-24, NO. BBMP/SNNY/(MV)/PO/34/23-24, NO. BBMP/SNNY/(MV)/PO/50/23-24, NO. BBMP/ SNNY/ (MV)/PO/41/23-24, PASSED BY R3 UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF BBMP ACT, PRODUCED AS ANNEUXRE-L TO L7 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have called in question the correctness of the provisional order passed under Section 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, 2020 (for brevity 'BBMP Act') at Annexures-'K' to 'K3' and have also sought for setting aside of the orders at Annexures-'L'
to 'L7' passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. 2. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that there has been no service of notice before the order under Section 248(1) nor of the notice under Section 248(2) or of the order under Section 248(3)
of the BBMP Act.
3. Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the spot inspection that has been conducted is without notice to the petitioners and accordingly, it is submitted that on this sole ground, the impugned orders are required to be set aside.
4. Though learned counsel appearing for respondent-BBMP submits that all efforts have been made for service of notice on the petitioners and the notices were sent through Registered Post, however, there is no material placed to demonstrate that notices are served on such of the persons who are residing outside Bengaluru. It is however submitted by counsel for the BBMP that notices have been received by the petitioners at the Bengaluru address.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner Nos.4 to 8 are permanent residents of State of Andhra Pradesh and that none of the petitioner Nos.4 to 7 have been served with notice at the address at Andhra Pradesh.
6. It is further submitted that the spot inspection stated to have been done on the basis of the order passed under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act is in the absence of petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners have built excess of the sanctioned plan as well as have committed deviations.
7. The whole controversy would go back to the spot inspection being relied upon by the respondent BBMP for initiating the proceedings under Section 248(1), which has culminated in the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act.
8. No doubt, learned counsel for the respondent BBMP has asserted that spot inspection has been done. In all such matters, it would be advisable that spot inspection is done in the presence of petitioners so as to narrow down the area of controversy and also to ensure that the petitioners be put on notice.
9. In light of ambiguity regarding service of notice on the petitioners, it would be appropriate that the whole process is re-done from the stage of spot inspection to be conducted in the presence of petitioners.
10. Taking note of the same and that some of the petitioners are residing outside the limits of the State, it is appropriate that the petitioners would mark their presence before the respondent BBMP on 26.02.2024 at 11.30 a.m. either through themselves or through their representative with authorization. On the said date, the respondent BBMP is to either conduct spot inspection or fix a date for spot inspection, which would then be followed with the procedure prescribed under Section 248, if circumstances are so made out. On the said date, if the petitioners present themselves before BBMP and noticing that some of the petitioners are staying outside the State, the representative to be nominated by the petitioners to collect the notice on behalf of petitioners. Further, the representative nominated shall collect the notices and furnish the details as regards petitioners and the respondent-BBMP shall ensure that notice on such representative nominated with acknowledgement would suffice notice as required under the statute.
11. Accordingly, the provisional orders at Annexures-'K' to 'K3' passed under Section 248(1) and the orders at Annexures-'L' to 'L7' passed under Section 248(3) are set aside. It is further observed that the petitioners are required to co-operate with the respondent Authorities and furnish the clarifications and documents as may be sought for by them.
In light of the above obs
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
