Bengaluru civic authority told to invite applications transparently before licensing public grounds for fairs

The petitioner challenged an order dated 11 August 2026 granting the fourth respondent a licence to conduct a fair/exhibition at an open ground in Whitefield from 10 to 25 October 2026 under Section 303(1)(l) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

The petitioner relied on its earlier application, dated 16 January 2026, seeking permission to use the ground for the same period; the fourth respondent’s application was dated 10 June 2026

The fourth respondent submitted that it had paid ₹1,19,080, commenced use of the ground, and incurred expenditure on infrastructure. The petitioner approached the Court on 5 October 2026

Whether the third respondent’s grant of the licence, without an apparent process inviting and transparently considering applications, warranted judicial intervention

Whether the third respondent had jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Act to issue the licence

Whether relief should be granted despite the petitioner’s delay in approaching the Court after the licence had been issued and preparations had commenced

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the impugned licence was stated to have been issued under Section 303(1)(l) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024

The Court observed that, where a public facility is licensed, applications should be invited through published notice and considered transparently under guidelines disclosed in that notice; the exercise of power under Section 303 is also subject to the relevant delegation of authority

The Court did not cite or apply any judicial precedent.

The Court noted that the record did not refer to a published notice inviting applications, and observed that this could indicate the licence was not granted through an open and transparent process, with potential implications for public revenue. It also noted that the third respondent’s authority to issue the licence under Section 303 required examination

However, the Court declined to grant relief against the existing licence because the petitioner waited until 5 October 2026 to approach the Court, after the fourth respondent had paid the fee and had the opportunity to mobilise resources and build infrastructure. The Court therefore left the merits of the licence and the jurisdictional question unresolved, while directing attention to proper procedure for future licences and examination of the third respondent’s authority

The petitioner was granted liberty to place the order before the third respondent and to return to the Court if the procedural observations were not followed. The petitioner could also place the order before the second respondent, who was called upon to instruct the Commissioner of the Bengaluru East City Corporation to examine the third respondent’s jurisdiction and ensure compliance with the Court’s observations on publishing notices inviting applications