KARNATAKA v. EMMADI HALLI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
i) The writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
W/O SRINIVAS R. CHINTAGUNTA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2. SRINIVAS R. CHINTAGUNTA, S/O MALAKONDA REDDY C H, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.196, "PRITHVI LAYOUT", PATTANDURU AGRAHARA BANGALORE EAST TALUK, KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 036. (BY SRI. ROHAN S, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS G.B.A) HAVING OFFICE AT NR SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001.
THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVPURA ZONE, RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9833 WP No. 4988 of 2026 HC-KAR BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA), HAVING OFFICE AT RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 048.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION, BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA), NEAR GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, EMMADI HALLI, BANGALORE - 560 066 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 BEARING NO. BBMP/SA KA A/Y U VI. PG NAM.80/2025-26 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU / R3 UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER
1. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9833 WP No. 4988 of 2026 HC-KAR
2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any writ of like nature to quash the provisional order dated 18.11.2025 bearing No. ©©JA¦/¸ÀPÁC/ªÉÊ.G.«/¦.d.£ÀA.80/2025-26 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Whitefield Sub division, BBMP, Bengaluru/Respondent No.3 under section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 vide Annexure A ii. b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any writ of like nature to the notice dated 18.11.2025 bearing No.©©JA¦/¸ÀPÁC/ªÉÊ.G.«/¦.d.£ÀA.80/2025-26issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Whitefield Sub division, BBMP, Bengaluru/Respondent No.3 under section 2480) of the BBMP Act, 2020 vide Annexure B c. Pass any such other Orders as this Hon'ble Court Deems fit under the facts and Circumstances of the case.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 came into force on 14.05.2025, the notice under sub- section (1) of Section-248 of the BBMP Act, 2020 has been issued on 18.11.2025, which could not have been so done since the said Act has stood repealed by the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.
This issue has been dealt by this Court vis-a-vis the erstwhile Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'KMC Act, 1976) and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9833 WP No. 4988 of 2026 HC-KAR hereinafter referred to as 'BBMP Act, 2020') in the case of Dr.N. Gnanamurthy and another -vs- The Commissioner and others1 and this Court has categorically come to a conclusion that once the BBMP Act, 2020 has come into force, powers under sub-section (1) of Section 321 of the KMC Act, 1976 could not be resorted to. Similar would be the situation in the present matter. Once the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 has come into force, the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020 could not be resorted to.
In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
Operative part
O R D E R i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) A certiorari is issued, the provisional order dated
18.11.2025 passed under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 by the Respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is quashed. 1 W.P.NO.26789/2023(LB-BMP) - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9833 WP No. 4988 of 2026 HC-KAR iii) Respondents would always be at liberty to issue fresh notices under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act,
2024. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: i) The writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024; Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020; Once the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.
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.