Karnataka High Court
WP/35984/2024 of SURESH THAMMINA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 31 December 2024
2024:KHC:53352 WP No. 35984 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35984 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SURESH THAMMINA S/O T VENKATESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO 004,
Digitally signedby SHWETHARAGHAVENDRALocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
-WRIT PETITION NO. 35984 OF 2024 (LBBMP)
BETWEEN:
SURESH THAMMINA S/O T VENKATESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO 004, SANIA GREEN HOMES, 5TH CROSS ALFA GARDEN KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI, ADVOCATE) SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HOODI SUB DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA, BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 048.
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HOODI SUB DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA, BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 048. HOODI SUB DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA, BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 048.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER 248(1) AND (3) 356 (1) OF THE BBMP ACT 2020 AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned counsel Sri. Pawan Kumar accepts notice for respondent No.1 to 5.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:
(i) Quash the proceedings initiated under 248(1) and (3), 356(1) of the BBMP Act 2020 as one without jurisdiction as per Annexure-N.
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, the Commissioner of the BBMP to dispose of the appeal within reasonable time Appeal bearing No.288/2024 filed on 22.11.2024.
(iii) Direct the Zonal Commissioner not to act upon the proceedings initiated by an incompetent person i.e., Assistant Executive Engineer, Hoodi Subdivision Mahadevapura and further not to ratify the proceedings initiated by the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020, on 22.11.2024 and sought for an interim order of stay. Neither the said application is considered nor the appeal disposed of till now. However, respondent No.5 has issued a notice of demolition fixing a schedule of seven days. petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020, on 22.11.2024 and sought for an interim order of stay. Neither the said application is considered nor the appeal disposed of till now. However, respondent No.5 has issued a notice of demolition fixing a schedule of seven days.
4. The submission of Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the BBMP is that the Chief Commissioner is sitting on every 1[st] Saturday and 3[rd] Saturday when the matter will be taken up. on every 1[st] Saturday and 3[rd] Saturday when the matter will be taken up.
5. The remedy on the appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020, cannot be rendered an empty formality if the Commissioner is going to take a long time to dispose of the appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, it would be required for the interest of the appellant therein to be protected. BBMP Act, 2020, cannot be rendered an empty formality if the Commissioner is going to take a long time to dispose of the appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, it would be required for the interest of the appellant therein to be protected.
6. In that view of the matter, the 2[nd] respondent Chief Commissioner is directed to work out a suitable mechanism to protect the interest of the appellants since the consideration of the appeal would take some time. In this case, as could be seen from November 2024, the appeal has not been considered. Commissioner is directed to work out a suitable mechanism to protect the interest of the appellants since the consideration of the appeal would take some time. In this case, as could be seen from November 2024, the appeal has not been considered.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the respondents are restrained from demolition of the construction are restrained from demolition of the construction
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53352
WP No. 35984 of 2024
put up by the petitioner till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No.288/2024.
8. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall not carryout any further construction.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner stands disposed of.
Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
SNC
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 90