Mysuru Father-Son May Contest Residential-Area Refusal Of Commercial Plan; Civic Body Must Give Reasoned Decision Within 6 Weeks Of Their Reply, Karnataka HC Says

The petitioners claimed ownership of a 15 m × 24 m site in Hootagalli, Mysuru, and sought permission to construct a commercial building.

The Mysuru Development Authority and Hootagalli City Municipal Council refused, stating that the site was in a residential area.

The petitioners contended that the property abutted a 24-metre-wide road, lay beyond the Outer Ring Road, and was therefore within a “Commercial Axes” area under Regulation 6.6.1 of the Zoning of Land Use and Development Control Regulations.

They relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 3603/2023, dated 26 October 2023, concerning commercial use in such areas.

Regulation 6.6.1 of the Zoning of Land Use and Development Control Regulations governs the recognition and permitted use of properties on a “Commercial Axes”.

The Court’s prior decision in W.P. No. 3603/2023 held that where a property is designated as Commercial Axes and the proposed use is permitted under C-3, approval is governed by the Master Plan and the applicable Development Control Regulations, rather than being barred by paragraph 42 of the Supreme Court judgment considered there.

The authority must assess whether the property satisfies the relevant zoning criteria and give cogent reasons for refusing approval.

The Court noted the petitioners’ claim that the site abutted a 24-metre-wide road and lay beyond the Outer Ring Road, but left it to the competent authority to verify whether the property qualified as being on a Commercial Axes.

Given the prior decision in W.P. No. 3603/2023, the authority could not rely solely on the property’s residential-area classification without addressing the zoning claim and the applicable regulations.

The Court therefore treated the municipal endorsement as a show-cause notice, allowing the petitioners to respond and requiring a reasoned decision.

The endorsement dated 30 July 2026 was treated as a show-cause notice; the petitioners were permitted to file a response with a certified copy of the order within one week.

The third respondent was directed, within six weeks of receiving the response and certified copy, to communicate its decision—granting approval or refusing it with cogent reasons consistent with the Court’s observations.