Dismissed¶¶47

Sri Honnesh Gowda B R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025WA/1779/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ appeal dismissed; GM-Police; Karnataka High Court Division Bench; police notice dated 13.07.2024 erroneous; purported High Court directions never issued; animal sacrifice; non-veg consumption within 200 metres of temple; Sri Honneshwaraswamy Temple, Shivanagere, Madhugiri, Tumakuru; Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act 1959; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960; impleadment application not considered; no prejudice to appellant; representations dated 27.06.2023; WP No.18124/2023 order dated 05.06.2024; WP No.25313/2025 order dated 10.09.2025; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; authorities to take informed decision; Circle Inspector Badavanahalli Police Station.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was left undisturbed. ¶¶47

Sri Honnesh Gowda B R Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal was dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was left undisturbed.

¶¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the Police Notice dated 13.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4, which cited purported prohibitory directions of the High Court against animal sacrifice and non-vegetarian consumption within 200 metres of Sri Honneshwaraswamy Temple, was erroneous as no such directions were ever issued by this Court. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

The police notice impugned in the writ petition was erroneous because it directed compliance of certain prohibitory directions which were not issued by this Court.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

This Court had not issued any directions to prohibit animal sacrifice or consumption of non-vegetarian food items within 200 meters of the temple in question; the notice concededly is ex facie erroneous.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

No infirmity was found with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge; it was not necessary to examine the appellant's claims as the petition had been disposed of because the impugned notice was erroneous.ratio¶¶46
The learned Single Judge made no observations to the prejudice of the appellant or his case; on the contrary, the Court had directed that the concerned authorities should take an informed decision.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, and C.M. Poonacha, Judge) dismisses Writ Appeal No. 1779 of 2025 (GM-POLICE), filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, challenging the Single Judge's order dated 10.09.2025 in Writ Petition No.25313/2025. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 had impugned a Police Notice dated 13.07.2024 issued by the Circle Inspector, Badavanahalli Police Station, which recited purported High Court directions requiring that no animal sacrifice or non-vegetarian consumption take place within 200 mts of Sri Honneshwaraswamy Temple. The Division Bench holds the notice ex facie erroneous, as no such prohibitory directions were ever issued by the Court; the appellant's own Writ Petition No.18124/2023 had merely been disposed of on 05.06.2024 with a direction to the authorities to consider his representations dated 27.06.2023 and take an informed decision. Although the appellant's application for impleadment in the writ petition was not considered, the Bench finds no infirmity in the impugned order and no observation prejudicial to the appellant, and dismisses the appeal. The Bench also records the State's position that animal sacrifices are prohibited under the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959, while restrictions on non-vegetarian consumption near the temple fall outside that Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB WA No. 1779 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1779 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI HONNESH GOWDA B R S/O. LATE. B J RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SHIVANAGERE JAKKENAHALLI POST DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DIST - 572 112

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. AGNIHOTRI KESHAV RANGANATHACHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU - 572 101

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB WA No. 1779 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR MADUGIRI TALUK, MADUGIRI TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 112

¶19

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR BADAVANAHALLI POLICE STATION BADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 112

¶20

SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) SHIVANAGERE VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 112 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MANJUNATH J.

¶21

SRI GURU. G.S.RAMACHANDRASWAMY S/O. LATE GURU SHIVARAMANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT GULUGENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(SRI K S HARISH GA FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO HEAR THE PARTIES ON MERITS AND PASS A JUDGEMENT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10/09/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.25313/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB WA No. 1779 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶31

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25313/2025 (GM-POLICE). Respondent Nos.5 and 6 had filed the said petition impugning a Police Notice dated 13.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4. The said notice reads as under:

¶32

"It is hereby informed to you that Sri. Honnesh Gowda B R, S/o. Late. Rajagopal, R/o. Shivanagere, filed a W.P. No. 18124/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru regarding the subject of animal sacrifice in Sri Honneshwaraswamy Temple and the Hon'ble Court after a detailed enquiry has passed the following Order in respect of the Temple.

¶33

The Hon'ble Court has Ordered that proper steps shall be taken to see that any type of animal sacrifice and non-veg consumption does not take place in and around 200 mts of Sri Honneshwaraswamy Temple. So, the Order passed by the Hon'ble Court shall be compulsorily obeyed. In case there is any violation of the High Court Order, suitable action shall be initiated against you. A Copy of the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court is enclosed herewith."

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB WA No. 1779 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Concededly, the said notice is ex facie erroneous as this Court had not issued any directions to prohibit animal sacrifice or consumption of non-vegetarian food items within 200 meters of the temple in question. Writ Petition No.18124/2023, which was preferred by the appellant was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 05.06.2024 directing the concerned authorities to take necessary steps/actions pursuant to the representations dated 27.06.2023 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from that date. Thus, the concerned authorities were required to examine the representations made by the appellant and take an informed decision. However, the Police Notice dated 13.07.2024 (which is impugned in Writ Petition No.25313/2025) has been issued citing specific prohibitory directions issued by this Court, which were never issued.

¶37

Insofar as sacrifices of animals are concerned, it is contended on behalf of the State that all sacrifices are prohibited under the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959. However, insofar as the consumption of non-vegetarian items within 200 metres of the temple in question is concerned, the learned Single Judge had noted that the said issue was not

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB WA No. 1779 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

covered by the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959 or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had observed that if any restriction is to be imposed, the same is required to be based on local practices.

¶41

It was also contented on behalf of the State that the impugned notice (as set out above) would be withdrawn. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had taken the said submission on record and disposed of the writ petition.

¶42

The appellant is aggrieved as his application for being impleaded in the writ petition was not considered. The appellant claims that it is at his instance that the impugned notice was issued as he was the writ petitioner in WP No.18124/2023, which was disposed of by an order dated 05.06.2024 directing the concerned authorities to consider his representations. He submits that he had produced several documents on record which would have been relevant for adjudication of the writ petition.

¶43

It is not necessary to examine the appellant’s claims as the petition has been disposed of for the reason that the impugned

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB WA No. 1779 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

notice was erroneous. We find no infirmity with the impugned order. It is ex facie clear that the police notice which was impugned in the writ petition was erroneous for the reasons as it directed compliance of certain directions which were not issued by this Court. We also note that the learned Single Judge has not made any observations to the prejudice of the appellant or his case. On the contrary, the Court had directed that the concerned authorities should take an informed decision.

¶47

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶50

AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri Honnesh Gowda B R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Honnesh Gowda B R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. P Shalini Shetty Vs Sri.Munish Moudgil (Ias)

Sri Prakash C Vs Sri P Manivanan

M Nanjaiah Vs S. Vishwanatha

Mr. Kriplani Madan Kanthan Vs Mr. Yogesh Dubey

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sugam Packing Industries Vs M/S Tiwnkle Impex