Prathap. S vs Greater Bengaluru Authority Represented By Its Chief Commissioner, N.R. Square, Bengaluru - 560002 & Ors

B M Shyam Prasad, J

The petitioner is called in question the Provisional Order under Section 243(3)(c) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, the Act'], and this order is by the third respondent and is dated 30.04.2026 [Annexure-F]. Sri Veeresh K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Provisional Order is without inspection as contemplated under Section 243[2] of the Act and there is every likelihood of action being taken for demolition.

Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondent, rightly points out that this is only a Provisional Order and there would be action to remove the deviations once there is an order under Section 243 (3) (e) of the Act and if the petitioner fails to act according to such order. When queried, the learned counsel is also categorical that the Provisional Order is issued but no action is taken because the petitioner has not filed any reply.

This Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner can justify that there is neither inspection nor a joint inspection of the property, or that there is no deviation in the terms of the Provisional Order, the petitioner still have an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action especially when there must be a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 243(d) proviso.

Hence, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a response within a week from today without waiting for a certified copy of this order calling upon the Joint Commissioner to ensure that there is personal hearing and a reasoned order as contemplated in law. This Court also directs that there shall not be any precipitous action until there is an order under Section 243(3)(c) of the Act while also stipulating that the petitioner shall not proceed with further construction unless there is an order as aforesaid.