Disposed¶38

Sri. B Veeresh S/O Veeranna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2025WP/101088/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Dharwad 2025 writ petition mandamus disposal of representation alternate route mining trucks danger to lives Grama Panchayat recommendation Sandur Taluk Ballari District Deputy Commissioner Tahsildar Public Works Department communication KAM.M.A.G/47/2018-19 twelve weeks consider representation pass orders in accordance with law Articles 226 227 GM-RES M. Nagaprasanna

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent-State to consider the petitioner's representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, at any rate within twelve weeks from the date of the copy of the order. ¶38

Sri. B Veeresh S/O Veeranna Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14871 WP No. 101088 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101088 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. B. VEERESH S/O. VEERANNA, AGE: 58 YEARS, R/O: HOUSE NO 42, MAIN ROAD, RAJITPURA, RAJITPURA POST, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT – 583 118.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. S. A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO 335, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT,

¶13

DC OFFICE, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION, BALLARI – 583 101.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, SANDUR TALUK, L B COLONY, SANDUR – 583 119.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.6.2024 GIVEN ON 4.7.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14871 WP No. 101088 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

WITHIN A STIPULATED TIME. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNICATION NO.KAM.M.A.G/47/201819 DATED 23.08.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶24

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for

¶25

respondents.

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶27

following prayer:

¶28

A. Issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.6.2024 given on 4.7.2024 produced at Annexure-C within a stipulated time.

¶29

B. Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to take further action pursuant to the communication no.KAM.M.A.G/47/2018-19 dated 23.08.2018 issued by respondent no.3 produced at Annexure-B.

¶30

C. To issue any other suitable writ or order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sourabh A. Sondur,

¶32

appearing for petitioner and learned AGA-Sri.T.Hanumareddy, appearing for respondents.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14871 WP No. 101088 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Owing to certain mining activities, the petitioner had

¶36

submitted a representation requesting an alternate route for the mining trucks to move as it had caused danger to their lives.

¶37

The Grama Panchayat on the representation made by the petitioner is said to have suggested an alternate route by utilizing all available resources. The representation to that effect has not merit consideration at the hands of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court afore-quoted prayer.

¶38

In the light of the prayer being innocuous and the recommendation of the Grama Panchayat being in place, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, at any rate, within twelve weeks from the date of the copy of this order.

¶39

Ordered accordingly.

¶40

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶41

RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri. B Veeresh S/O Veeranna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B Veeresh S/O Veeranna 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

Sri.Jayaram P Vs the State of Karnataka

Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indi Vivekananda

B.M. Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar Yamanappa Talwar Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member

Sri. Nanu S/O Sahadev Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Appasab S/O Maruti Ranavagol Vs the State of Karnataka