Karnataka High Court
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike vs Smt Bhagya on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45810
WP No. 33853 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 33853 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
BEGUR SUB DIVISION
NO.344, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
DUO HEIGHTS LAYOUT, BEGUR
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BENGALURU-560014
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BEGUR SUB DIVISION, BBMP
DEVARACHICKKANAHALLI, BEGUR
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE
BENGALURU-560014
...PETITIONERS
Digitally (BY SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE)
signed by
SUMA
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF 1.
KARNATAKA SMT. BHAGYA
W/O RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT 60/51,
CHIKKAKERE ROAD
KUDULU VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU-560068
2. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
1ST FLOOR, M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45810
WP No. 33853 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1
AND 2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT COURT HALL NO.2,
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU TO RECEIVE
ADVANCEMENT APPLICATION AND TO FURTHER DIRECT TO RECEIVE
THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN
APPEAL NO.36/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE - C AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of
mandamus to direct respondent No.2 - the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal, Bengaluru, to receive the advancement application
and to receive the written arguments on behalf of the
petitioners.
2. The petitioners contend that respondent No.1 had
filed an appeal under Section 443-A of Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1976'
for short) challenging the confirmation order passed under
Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976 before respondent No.2. The
NC: 2025:KHC:45810
HC-KAR
appeal was listed before the Tribunal on 13.10.2025 on which
day the tribunal noticed that the petitioners and their counsel
were absent, and therefore the tribunal took it that the
petitioners had no arguments to advance and posted the
matter for judgment on 19.11.2025.
3. The petitioners contend that they filed an
application for advancement of the case to file their written
arguments. However, the tribunal did not receive the said
application on the ground that there was no provision enabling
filing of such an application.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that due to reasons beyond control of the petitioners, the
counsel representing the petitioners could not be present when
the case was taken up for arguments. He submits that in order
to enable the petitioners to place their case on merits, an
opportunity may be granted to them.
5. The tribunal is a quasi-judicial authority and is
therefore bound to follow the principles of natural justice. When
an application seeing advancement of hearing was filed, the
tribunal ought to have considered the same so as to at least
NC: 2025:KHC:45810
HC-KAR
receive the written arguments of the petitioners. The refusal by
the tribunal to receive the application and written arguments,
therefore warrants interference.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the
petitioners are permitted to submit the written arguments
before the tribunal and tribunal shall consider the same and
dispose off the appeal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
