IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31830 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. T. RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI. THIMMAMARIYAPPA, 2. SMT. RAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. T. RAVI KUMAR THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO. I-9, "K.B. RAYALE APARTMENT", BOMMASANDRA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SUMA AND:

Location:

HIGH COURT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA K.M.A.S - CADRE-1, OFFICE OF THE BOMMASANDRA TOWN MUNICIPALITY, BOMMASANDRA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT- BENGALURU-560099.

…RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ORDER OR WRIT OF LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE CONFIRMATION ORDER BEARING NO. PU.KABO/THA.SHA/C.R/04/ 2023-24 DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IE., THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER K.M.A.S - CADRE-1, OFFICE OF THE BOMMASANDRA TOWN MUNICIPALITY, BOMMASANDRA, PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 'R', TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have challenged a confirmation order bearing No.Pu.KaBo/Tha.Sha/C.R/04/2023-24 dated 28.10.2024 and they have also challenged an provisional order bearing No.Pu.KaBo/Tha.Sha/C.R/04/2023-24 dated 18.09.2024, respectively passed by the respondent under Section 187(9)(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1964' for short).

2. When this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners that an appeal is provided under Section 343 of the Act, 1964, he fairly submitted that if the construction put up by the petitioners is protected in the meanwhile, the petitioners would avail the remedy of an appeal.

3. In view of the above submission, this writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the appellants to challenge the order of confirmation before the Municipal Council as provided under Section 343 of the Act, 1964. The respondent is directed not to take any action pursuant to the confirmation order for a period of four weeks, within which time the petitioner shall file the appeal. It is made clear that this interim protection is only for a period of four weeks and shall not be construed as if it is extended till the disposal of the appeal before the Council. However, it is open for the petitioners to seek interim reliefs in the appeal that may be filed before the Council.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27