C P Ravindra v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:34656( WP(No.(19063(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( e ( ( e INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e THDATEDATHISATHEA9 ADAYAOFAJULY,A2026A e BEFOREA e e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e WRITAPETITIONANO.A19063AOFA2026A(LB-BMP)A e BETWEEN:AA e A e - C-P-RAVINDRA-S/O-PADMANABHA-REDDY.-e AGED-ABOUT-67-YEARS,- e R/AT-NO.-FLAT-NO.001.- e GROUND-FLOOR,-13/5-OLD-NO.137.- THADARSH-RESIDENCY,-27 -CROSS,- e rd3 -D-BLOCK,-JAYANAGAR-EAST,-- e BANGALORE-560-011.- e …PETITIONER-e (BY-SRI.-MANJUNATH-B-R.,-ADVOCATE)- e A AND:A e A Digitally 1.- GREATER-BENGALURU-AUTHORITY-signedtiby NR-SQUARE,-VANAMAeLA N BANGALORE-560-002.- Location: REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-- HIGH CHIEF-COMMISSIONER.- COURT0OF -KARNATAKA

2.- THE-ASSISTANT-DIRECTOR-OF-TOWN-PLANNING-- (SOUTH-ZONE,-BENGALURU)-- BBMP-COMMERCIAL-COMPLEX,-- TH TH ND9 -CROSS,-9 -MAIN,-2 -BLOCK,-- JAYANAGAR,-BENGALURU---560-011.- e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:34656( WP(No.(19063(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

3.-THE-ZONAL-COMMISSIONER-THBBMP-BENGALURU-SOUTH-9 -MAIN,--TH ND9 -CROSS,-2 -BLOCK,-JAYA-NAGAR,-BENGALURU---560-011.--

4.-M/S-ADARSH-CONSTRUCTIONS.-PARTNERSHIP-FIRM,--NO.-101,-MANJUNATHA-COMPLEX,--ND ND22 -MAIN-ROAD,-BSK-2 -STAGE,-BENGALURU-560-070.-REP-BY-ITS-PARTNER,-S.E.E.-MANJUNATH-…RESPONDENTS--(BY-SRI.-M-C-JAYAKIRTHI.,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R1-TO-R3)---THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO------------------------I)-QUASHING-THE-DATED-06/06/2026-PASSED-IN-APPEAL-NO.50/2026-ON-THE-FILE-OF-CHIEF-COMMISSIONER/APPELLATE-AUTHORITY,-GREATER-BENGALURU-AUTHORITY,-BENGALURU-PRODUCED-AT-ANNEXURE--A;-II)-ALLOW-THE-APPLICATION-FILED-BY-THE-PETITIONER-U/S-151-OF-CPC-SEEKING-IMPLEADING-HIM-AS-RESPONDENT-NO.3-IN-APPEAL-NO.50/2026-ON-THE-FILE-OF-CHIEF-COMMISSIONER/APPELLATE-AUTHORITY,-GREATER-BENGALURU-AUTHORITY,-BENGALURU.---THIS-PETITION,-COMING-ON-FOR-ORDERS,-THIS-DAY,-ORDER-WAS-MADE-THEREIN-AS-UNDER:---CORAM:--HON'BLE-MR.-JUSTICE-B-M-SHYAM-PRASAD-

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is with the summary rejection of an impleading application in Appeal No.50/2026 pending on the file of the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority, Bengaluru [the Appellate Authority]. The petitioner's case is that the fourth respondent [the appellant] has completed the construction contrary to the sanctioned plan.

¶2The proceedings are commenced under the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP Act'] for deviations from the sanctioned plan during the pendency of an interim order granted by the civil Court in a suit in O.S.No.26137/2023 [on the file of the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru1]. The commencement of such proceedings is called in question in W.P.No.9935/2026 [LB-BMP],

1 This suit is later withdrawn.

which is disposed of with liberty to the fourth respondent to avail the alternative appellate remedy, and it is only in these circumstances that the fourth respondent has filed the appeal.

¶3Sri Manjunath B.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings under the erstwhile BBMP Act are begun at the petitioner's instance and therefore he would be both a proper and a necessary party but the impleading application is rejected summarily without even extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that the appeal is scheduled to be listed on 17.07.2026 and that if this Court does not intervene at this stage, the proceedings could be completed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to justify his participation in the appeal proceedings.

¶4Sri M.C. Jayakeerthi, the learned counsel who accepts notice for the first to third respondents, cannot deny that the petitioner ought to have been extended with an opportunity of hearing before the impleading application could be rejected. This Court finds force in the petitioner's case that the impleading application could not have been rejected without an opportunity, and this is more so because the impleading application is rejected by a one-line order. Hence, the following. ORDER The petition is allowed in-part quashing the Order dated

06.06.2026 [Annexure-A] only insofar as it relates to the rejection of the petitioner's impleading application restoring such application for re-consideration leaving open all questions to be considered therein. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr