Sri Guru H M v. Bangalore Development Authority

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:12848 WP(No.(6415(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( RDDATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(6415(OF(2026((BDA) BETWEEN:( SRI.,GURU,H.,M., S/O.,MUNIRAJU,V.,, AGED,ABOUT,34,YEARS,, THR/AT,,NO.1113,,6 ,BLOCK,,, C,SECTOR,,NPKL,LAYOUT,, HOSAPALAYA,,RAMOHALLI,POST,, BENGALURU,-560,060., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,NISHANTH,A.,V.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., BANGALORE,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,,, Digitally signedtiby T.,CHOWDAIAH,ROAD,, VIJAYA0P KUMARA,PARK,WEST,,, Location: HIGH0COURT BENGALURU-560,020,,, OF REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,COMMISSIONER.,KARNATAKA

2., ASSISTANT,EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER,, NO.2,SUB-DIVISION,,, NADAPRABHU,KEMPEGOWDA,, LAYOUT,DIVISION,, BANGALORE,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,, BENGALURU,-,560,020.,

¶3BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K-1 SUB-DIVISION, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED

17.02.2026 BEARING NO.BEN.A.PRA/ SAKANIA

(NPKL)/15/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the validity of the notice dated 17.02.2026, whereby the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has noticed that there has been violation in the sanction plan vis-a-vis the construction put up and that further action would be taken, including informing the electricity supply authorities to cut off the power supply.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice at Annexure-A is bereft of details and does not specify the alleged violation. It is submitted that unless the notice contains details regarding alleged violation, the petitioner will not be in a position to take his stand by way of reply and satisfy the authorities as to the adherence to sanction plan and the applicable rules during construction.

¶3Learned counsel Sri. K. Krishna appearing for the respondent - BDA submits that the notice could have been issued after noticing violations.

¶4Having perused the notice at Annexure-A, it is clear that the notice does not refer to the nature of violations. The violations of the sanction plan by way of deviation in construction ought to be stipulated in order to enable the petitioner to take a stand as regards alleged violation of sanction plan that is stated to have occurred while putting up constructions.

¶5Accordingly, petition is disposed of, restraining the respondent - BDA from taking any action pursuant to the notice at Annexure-A, till the proceedings relating to ascertainment of violation of sanction plan are adjudicated upon as per the scheme under the Act.

¶6The authority may issue a fresh notice which would be deemed to be a continuation of notice at Annexure-A and such notice to state the nature of alleged violation upon which petitioner to make out his reply and the authority may adjudicate upon the proceedings as is permissible under the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act.

¶7Needless to state, till the proceedings initiated are concluded regarding violation of the sanction plan, the authority is restrained from taking any action towards demolition or giving instructions to the authority to cut of the essential amenities. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. All contentions are kept open.

¶8I.A.No.1/2026 is disposed of, by dispensing the petitioner from production of certified copy of Annexure-A. I.A.No.2/2026 is disposed of, by waiving of the requirement of production of typed/legible copy of Annexures-G, H, J and N. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR