Allowed¶31

Yamanappa S/O Rajappa Myadar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2025WP/100687/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge writ order of the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (Suraj Govindaraj, J., 01-02-2025) in a local bodies matter (LB-RES): writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 directing the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Gangavathi (Koppal district) to consider the petitioner's reply (Annexure-A) to the Council's notice dated 25.09.2024 and then pass orders in accordance with law. Useful on the requirement that an authority issuing a notice must consider the reply received before passing orders. No precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's reply to the notice dated 25.09.2024 and thereafter pass necessary orders in accordance with law; writ petition allowed accordingly. ¶31

Yamanappa S/O Rajappa Myadar Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 is required to consider the petitioner's reply dated 30-09-2024 (Annexure-A) to the notice dated 25.09.2024, and whether an order may be passed by respondent No.2 without such consideration.

¶24

Court's answer

Whenever any notice is issued and a reply is submitted thereto, the authority concerned, including respondent No.2, is required to consider the reply and pass necessary orders in accordance with law; the petitioner's apprehension of an order being passed without consideration was ill-founded.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 was directed to consider the petitioner's reply dated 13.09.2024 (as recorded in the operative direction; the prayer described the reply as dated 30-09-2024) issued to the notice dated 25.09.2024, and thereafter pass necessary orders in accordance with law; the writ petition was allowed accordingly.

¶29-30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (Suraj Govindaraj, J.) - WP No. 100687 of 2025 (LB-RES), decided 01-02-2025 - YAMANAPPA S/O. RAJAPPA MYADAR v. The Deputy Commissioner, Koppal and The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Gangavathi. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's reply dated 30-09-2024 (Annexure-A) to the notice dated 25.09.2024. Held: whenever any notice is issued and a reply submitted thereto, the authority including respondent No.2 is required to consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law; the apprehension that an order would be passed without consideration was ill-founded. Respondent No.2 directed to consider the reply dated 13.09.2024 (operative direction; prayer described it as dated 30-09-2024) issued to the notice dated 25.09.2024 and thereafter pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2027 WP No. 100687 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100687 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

YAMANAPPA S/O. RAJAPPA MYADAR AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. BANBOO MERCHANT, R/O. ISLAMPUR, GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231, (PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING THE BENEIFT OF SENIOR CITIZEN).

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. C.R.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT. KOPPAL-583231.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT. KOPPAL-583231.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

Digitally signed byASHPAKKASHIMSAMALAGALADINNI ASHPAKKASHIMSAMALAGALADINNI Location: Highcourt ofKarnataka,Dharwad Bench,DharwadDate: 2025.02.0415:45:13 +0530

¶14

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30-09-2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2027 WP No. 100687 of 2025

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner before this Court seeking for the

¶21

following prayer:

¶22

a. Writ of mandamus direction against the respondent no. 2 to consider the reply of the petitioner dated 30-09-2024, as per Annexure-A.

¶23

b. Any other order in the nature of writ as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has replied to the notice issued by respondent No.2 on 25.09.2024, the said reply has not yet been considered and as such, there is possibility of an order being passed by respondent No.2, without such consideration.

¶25

Whenever any notices issued and a reply submitted thereto, it would be required of any authority including the respondent No.2 to consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. The apprehension on part of petitioner is ill founded.

¶26