AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Nataraj, J
The petitioner has challenged an order bearing ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ/ಸಕಾಅ/ದೊಉವಿ/ಪಿ.ಆರ್/18/2025-26 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 2020' for short), as well as the order passed by respondent No.2 under Section 356(1) of the Act, 2020.
When this petition was taken up for final disposal, this Court suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal remedy is available and therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that an appeal remedy is indeed provided but claimed that since the officer was not sitting, this petition had to be filed.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that appeals are being entertained by the Appellate Authority and submits that the petitioners may be relegated to the remedy of an appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off, directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of an appeal before the Chief Commissioner in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from today and not beyond.
The respondent No.2 is directed not to give effect to the impugned order for a period of 15 days from today.
It is open for the petitioner to seek interim relief before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority shall consider the request in accordance with law.