SRI. PRATHAP. S vs THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY — WP/17625/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC010390652026

Filing Number

WP/17768/2026

Filing Date

11-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/17625/2026

Registration Date

11-Jun-2026

Judge

B M Shyam Prasad

Coram

B M Shyam Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

BMP-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ( 90 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SRI. PRATHAP. S

    Adv. VEERESHA K

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY

  2. 2.THE BENGALURU SOUTH CITY CORPORATION,

  3. 3.JOINT COMMISSIONER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    B M Shyam PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/17625/2026 The Karnataka High Court disposed of petitioner Prathap S's challenge to a Provisional Order dated 30-04-2026 issued by the Joint Commissioner regarding alleged deviations in his Bengaluru property. The court held that the petitioner retains the right to file a response within one week demonstrating the absence of improper inspection or actual deviations, and emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to a personal hearing under statutory law before any final demolition action. The court further prohibited any precipitous enforcement action until a final order is issued while restricting the petitioner from further construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matter/S

    B M Shyam Prasad

  4. 11-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/17625/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/17625/2026 The Karnataka High Court disposed of petitioner Prathap S's challenge to a Provisional Order dated 30-04-2026 issued by the Joint Commissioner regarding alleged deviations in his Bengaluru property. The court held that the petitioner retains the right to file a response within one week demonstrating the absence of improper inspection or actual deviations, and emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to a personal hearing under statutory law before any final demolition action. The court further prohibited any precipitous enforcement action until a final order is issued while restricting the petitioner from further construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case