Partly allowed¶34

Sri Usama S/O Suleman Khanjade v. the Chief Engineer

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025WP/100210/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC-KAR, Dharwad Bench; WP No. 100210 of 2025 (GM-RES); NC: 2025:KHC-D:10694; Usama and Mohammed Irfan v. Chief Engineer and Rehabilitation Officer, Bagalkot Town Development Authority; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; endorsement dated 19-12-2024 (No. PU A/BA PA A PRA/CR/2024-25/2386, Annexure-F) withdrawn by respondents; prayer infructuous; writ petition partly allowed; liberty to submit representation; consideration and orders within four weeks; Suraj Govindaraj, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; liberty reserved to the petitioners to submit a representation with all relevant documents before Respondent No. 2, who shall consider it and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within four weeks of submission. ¶34

Sri Usama S/O Suleman Khanjade Vs the Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the cyclostyle order/letter/notice/endorsement dated 19-12-2024 bearing No. PU A/BA PA A PRA/CR/2024-25/2386 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-F).

¶21

Ratio / Principle

During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents withdrew the endorsement dated 19.12.2024 at Annexure-F, thereby rendering prayer (a) (quashing of the endorsement) infructuous.

¶31

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to submit a representation placing all the relevant documents for consideration before Respondent No. 2.ratio¶37
Respondent No. 2 shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioners and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within four weeks of the representation having been submitted.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) No. 100210 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC-D:10694), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), decided 22-08-2025: Two businessmen of Navanagar, Bagalkot filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking certiorari to quash a cyclostyle order/letter/notice/endorsement dated 19-12-2024 bearing No. PU A/BA PA A PRA/CR/2024-25/2386 passed by Respondent No. 2, the Rehabilitation Officer, Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Annexure-F). During the pendency of the petition, the respondents withdrew the endorsement, rendering the principal prayer infructuous. Held: writ petition partly allowed; liberty reserved to the petitioners to submit a representation placing all relevant documents before Respondent No. 2, who shall consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within four weeks of the representation being submitted. No costs or quantum awarded; no precedents cited.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10694 WP No. 100210 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶5

DHARWAD BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100210 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI USAMA S/O. SULEMAN KHANJADE, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS.

¶11

SRI MOHAMMED IRFAN S/O. ABDULREHAMAN BEPARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶12

BOTH ARE R/O PLOT NO. 143 -A SECTOR NO.114, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K. S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶17

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOT-587103.

¶18

THE REHABILITATION OFFICER, BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOT-587103.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SANJAY S. CHANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CYCLOSTYLE ORDER/ LETTER/ NOTICE / ENDORSEMENT DATED. 19-12-2024 BEARING NO. PU A/BA PA A PRA/CR/2024-25/2386, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10694 WP No. 100210 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Cyclostyle order/letter/notice/endorsement dated 19.12.2024 bearing No. Pu A/Ba Pa A Pra/CR/202425/2386, passed by the R2 vide Annexure-F

¶30

b. Pass such other orders or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

During the pendency of the above matter, the respondents have withdrawn the endorsement dated 19.12.2024 at Annexure–F, rendering the prayer at Sl.No.(a), infructuous.

¶32

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10694 WP No. 100210 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to submit a representation by placing all the relevant documents for consideration before respondent No.2, which shall consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within period of four weeks of the said representation having been submitted.

¶38

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶39

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Sri Usama S/O Suleman Khanjade v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Usama S/O Suleman Khanjade v. the Chief Engineer

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

Shri. Sanjiv S/O Venkatrao Rayar Vs Smt. Shruti W/O Sanjay Rayar D/O Subhash Dikshit

Mr Inesio Almeida Coutinho S/O Jose Pedro Countinho Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Kasthuri Hiremani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Irfan Vs the Chief Engineer

Sri Imam Khasim So Abdulrehaman Bepari Vs the Chief Engineer

Sri Mohammed Gouse S/O Murtujasab Naykodi Vs the Chief Engineer