Sri. R. Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. R. Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court - i.e., whether a private landlord can seek a writ of mandamus against MSIL (a Government of India undertaking) to enforce contractual obligations regarding the retail outlet premises.

Court's answer

The writ petition is not maintainable; the answer to the short question is in the negative because the petitioner is a private party while the respondent is a Government of India undertaking.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is seeking to enforce contractual obligations (continuation in the same shop or taking another shop of the petitioner) via mandamus; contractual obligations or questions/disputes of a contractual nature cannot be dealt with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

The petition is dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to explore and exhaust his remedy in the appropriate forum for any relief, if so advised.ratio¶8
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), decided 05.06.2025 - Maintainability of writ petition / mandamus for contractual obligation. The petitioner, landlord of shop premises bearing No. 867/29, Harapanahalli town (Vijayanagar district), let to MSIL (Mysore Sales International Ltd., a Government of India undertaking) for a retail liquor outlet, sought mandamus directing respondent Nos. 4 to 9 (MSIL authorities) to consider his representation dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure-D) and to continue the MSIL retail outlet in his premises as per the rent agreement dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure-A), or to take another premises owned by him. Held, dismissing the petition: the petitioner is a private party and seeks enforcement of contractual obligations; contractual obligations or questions/disputes of a contractual nature cannot be dealt with by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. MSIL had already vacated and handed over the premises, opened a separate outlet elsewhere, and was not inclined to accept the petitioner's offer of alternate premises. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in the appropriate forum; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7362 WP No. 103187 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103187 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. R. LOKESH S/O. DAVANGERE DODD RAMAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KHATA NO.867/29, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583131.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT (EXCISE), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGAR-583201.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGAR-583201.

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. (MSIL) (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) MSIL HOUSE, 36 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (BEVERAGES), MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD., (MSIL)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7362 WP No. 103187 of 2025

HC-KAR

(A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) MSIL HOUSE, 36 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

THE GENERAL MANAGER (ZONAL), MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD., (MSIL) (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) MSIL HOUSE, 36 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

THE DISTRICT LIAISON OFFICER, MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD., (MSIL) (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGAR-583201.

THE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL ITD., (MSIL) (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) MSIL HOUSE, 36 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. B.S. GOUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R5-R8 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

a) ISSUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 9 CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 29.04.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

b) FURTHER, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 9 TO CONTINUE MSIL RETAIL OUTLET IN THE PREMISE BEARING NO.867/29, SITUATED AT HARAPANAHALLI TOWN TQ: HARAPANAHHALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR AS PER THE RENT AGREEMENT TERMS DATED 25.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7362 WP No. 103187 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

Heard Sri.Prakash R Badiger, learned

counsel for petitioner and Sri.Sharad V Magadum, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri.B.S.Goutham learned counsel for respondent No.4.

Notice to other respondents is dispensed as this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice for the reason that this Court is not inclined to accept this petition or pass any favorable orders to the petitioner.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent Nos.4 to 9 MSIL authorities to consider the representation of petitioner dated 29.04.2025, whereby the petitioner is seeking directions to respondent Nos.4 to 9 to continue MSIL retail outlet in the premises bearing No.867/29 situated at Harappanahalli town, taluka Harappanahalli, district Vijaynagar as per the rental agreement terms dated 25.03.2025.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7362 WP No. 103187 of 2025

HC-KAR

On bare perusal of the averments made in

the petition, it is not in dispute that there is a contractual agreement between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 9 MSIL authorities. Petitioner is the landlord of shop premises which was taken on rent by MSIL for the reasons best know to respondents. MSIL has decided to vacate or handover possession of the shop where retail liquor business was run. The petitioner landlord has requested respondent Nos.4 to 9 MSIL to make use of another premises owned by the petitioner, in view of the present shop which is vacated as it would be profitable to the respondent.

The short question for consideration before this

Court is, whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court.

In my opinion, the answer to this is, in the negative for the reason that, the petitioner is a private party though the respondent is a Government of India

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7362 WP No. 103187 of 2025

HC-KAR

undertaking. The petitioner is trying to enforce the contractual obligation and thereby is seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent-MSIL for either to continue in the same shop or to take up another shop belonging to the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to go into this aspect of the matter so also for issuance of a writ of mandamus, as contractual obligations or the questions of dispute of contractual nature, cannot be dealt with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Be that as it may. Learned counsel for MSIL submits that they have already vacated the premises and handed over the vacant premises to the petitioner and they have already opened a separate outlet elsewhere and they are not inclined to accept the offer of taking the shop offered by the petitioner.

Under the circumstances, I pass the following

order:

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7362 WP No. 103187 of 2025

HC-KAR

The petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to explore and exhaust his remedy in the appropriate forum for any relief, if so advised.

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

Kmv from para 5 till end

VB,