Partly allowed¶34

Sri Mohammed Irfan v. the Chief Engineer

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025WP/100227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Bagalkot Town Development Authority; Rehabilitation Officer; Chief Engineer; withdrawal of endorsement; Annexure-F; certiorari; Articles 226 and 227; GM-RES; Navanagar Bagalkot; representation to authority; four-week timeline. Relevant for matters concerning withdrawal of authority endorsements pending writ proceedings and directions to consider fresh representations in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; the quashing prayer stood rendered infructuous by the respondents' withdrawal of the endorsement; petitioners given liberty to submit a representation with all relevant documents before Respondent No. 2, which shall consider it and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within four weeks of submission. ¶34

Sri Mohammed Irfan Vs the Chief Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should be issued to quash the impugned cyclostyle order/letter/notice/endorsement dated 19.12.2024 bearing No. Pu A/Ba Pa A Pra/CR/202425/2384, passed by Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-F.

¶29

Court's answer

During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents withdrew the endorsement dated 19.12.2024 at Annexure-F, rendering the principal prayer (Sl.No.(a)) for quashing infructuous.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

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

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) No. 100227 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Suraj Govindaraj, J.; decided 22.08.2025): Petitioners Mohammed Irfan and Usama sought certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash a cyclostyle order/letter/notice/endorsement dated 19.12.2024 (cover prayer cites No. PU A/BA PA A PRA/CR/2024-25/2385; relief clause cites No. Pu A/Ba Pa A Pra/CR/202425/2384) passed by Respondent No. 2, the Rehabilitation Officer, Bagalkot Town Development Authority, vide Annexure-F. During pendency the respondents withdrew the endorsement, rendering the quashing prayer infructuous. Held: writ petition partly allowed; liberty reserved to the petitioners to submit a representation placing all relevant documents before Respondent No. 2, which shall consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within four weeks of its submission. No precedent engaged; only constitutional provisions cited.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10691 WP No. 100227 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

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 100227 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI MOHAMMED IRFAN S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN BEPARI, AGE. 32 YEARSS, OCC. BUSINESS.

¶12

SRI USAMA S/O. SULEMAN KHANJADE, AGE. 24 YEARSS, OCC. BUSINESS.

¶13

BOTH ARE R/O. PLOT NO.143-A SECTOR NO.14, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

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

¶16

AND:

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. CHANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 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/2024-25/2385, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10691 WP No. 100227 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/202425/2384, 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:10691 WP No. 100227 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 Mohammed Irfan v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Irfan 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 Usama S/O Suleman Khanjade 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