M/S R2 v. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
the above petition is disposed of with a direction that
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Be that as it may, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the Corporation that the appeal of the petitioner would be considered at the very next sitting, - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9596 WP No. 4592 of 2026 HC-KAR the above…
Judgment
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. P. VERRE RAGHAVA REDDY, S/O P.P. CHNAGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA T, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9596 WP No. 4592 of 2026 HC-KAR
THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (BBMP) MAHADEVAPURA, RHB COLONY, WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE GREATER BENGALURU, (EAST-1), WHITE FIELD SUB- DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 to R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 06.11.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 313 AND 352 OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020. THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 248(1). THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18.11.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 248(2). AND THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 02.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020, ALL BEARING NO. SAM.BBMP/SAKAA/Y.U.V/P.R.NO. 79/2025-26, AND ALL SERVED BELATEDLY ON 06.01.2026, AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-S, T, U AND V, ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE GREATER BENGALURU (EAST-1), WHITEFIELD SUB- DIVISION, BENGALURU-560066 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9596 WP No. 4592 of 2026 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) "To quash the impugned notice dated 06.11.2025 issued under Sections 313 and 352 of the BBMP Act, 2020; the provisional order dated 18.11.2025 issued under Section 248(1); the show cause notice dated 18.11.2025 issued under Section 248(2); and the confirmation order dated 02.12.2025 passed under Section 278(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, all bearing No. SAM. BBMP/SAKAA/Y.U.V/P.R.No.79/2025- 26, and all served belatedly on 06.01.2026, Annexures S, T, U and V, issued by the third respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Office of Greater Bengaluru (East-1), Whitefield Sub-Division, Bengaluru-560066. produced (b) Pass such other orders including the order as to costs as this Hon'ble Court circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. " to grant under
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal which has been filed by the petitioner on 22.01.2026 under Sections 256 and 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020 has still not been considered by the first respondent and there is an - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9596 WP No. 4592 of 2026 HC-KAR imminent danger of the property of the petitioner being demolished.
3. Sri. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Chief Commissioner takes up the matters every fortnight on the Saturday i.e., the first Saturday and the third Saturday and he further submits that due to large number of matters, the appeal of the petitioner might not have been taken up, but he submits that the same would be taken up at the very next sitting.
The City of Bangalore now having five corporations, an appeal being required to be heard by the Chief Commissioner may not be practical. There being huge number of matters which are filed under the erstwhile Section 253 and now Section 250 of the GBA Act, it would be required for the concerned to have a re-look on it so as to enable each of the Commissioner of the particular commissionerate to take up the matter.
Operative part
Be that as it may, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the Corporation that the appeal of the petitioner would be considered at the very next sitting, - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9596 WP No. 4592 of 2026 HC-KAR the above petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents do not take any coercive steps, until the appeal taken up for hearing by the Chief Commissioner. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE JS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the above petition is disposed of with a direction that
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.