Dismissed¶¶52

Smt. Nasrina v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025WP/11469/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 power of superintendence; no mandamus for departmental enquiry against public servants; refusal to direct disciplinary action; seizure of second-hand furniture and household items; Rajakaluve / storm water drain encroachment; Vijayapura Town Municipal Council enforcement; return of seized goods upon penalty of Rs.1,000/-; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru, 2025; LB-RES; municipal enforcement; Bengaluru Rural District; Devanahalli Taluk.

What did the court decide?

None by the Court — the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous; Respondent No.6 had already returned the seized goods upon imposition of a penalty of Rs.1,000/- (second prayer substantially complied with). ¶¶52

Smt. Nasrina Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents 1 to 5 can be directed, by writ of mandamus, to hold a departmental enquiry against Respondent No.6 into the charges leveled against the petitioner. +2 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

The first prayer — a direction to Respondents 1 to 5 to initiate departmental/disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.6 — cannot be granted in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶43

Ratio / Principle

The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not extend to issuing directions for initiating disciplinary action against public servants.

¶¶47

Key takeaways

With the second prayer substantially complied with by Respondent No.6 (seized goods returned upon a penalty of Rs.1,000/-) and no further adjudication warranted, the Court found no reason to continue the proceedings.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-RES) No. 11469 of 2019, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, oral order dated 10 June 2025 by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum. The petitioner, engaged in selling second-hand furniture and household articles, challenged enforcement by Respondent No.6 (Chief Officer, Vijayapura Town Municipal Council), who, acting on a public complaint, found her business encroaching upon a portion of the Rajakaluve (storm water drain) and seized the goods displayed for sale there. She sought (i) a mandamus directing Respondents 1-5 to hold a departmental enquiry against Respondent No.6 for alleged abuse of power and highhandedness, and (ii) release/return of the seized goods. At the preliminary hearing, counsel for Respondent No.6 filed a memo stating the seized items had been returned upon imposition of a penalty of Rs.1,000/-, complying with the second prayer. The Court held that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution does not extend to issuing directions for initiating disciplinary action against public servants, so the first prayer could not be granted; with the second prayer substantially complied with and no further adjudication warranted, the writ petition stood dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19970 WP No. 11469 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11469 OF 2019 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NASRINA W/O SARDAR, AGE 45 YEARS,OCC: KOOLI, R/AT NEAR EDGA MAIDANA SHIDLAGHATTA CROSS VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 103.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MUNIRAJ .V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWER DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, CHAPPARAKALLU DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:19970 WP No. 11469 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR VIJAYAPURA POLICE STATION DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶21

THE CHIEF OFFICER VIJAYAPURA TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 103. REPRESENTED BY SHRI. A.H. NAGARAJ

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. BOPANNA .B, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. NAGARAJ S. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO HOLD DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY TO THE R-6 INTO THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶29

"i. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 to hold departmental enquiry to the Respondent No.6 into the charges leveled against the Petitioner.

¶30

ii. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.6 to release the second hand furniture and house hold items business from the Petitioner."

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19970 WP No. 11469 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The petitioner is engaged in the business of selling second-hand furniture and household articles. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is directed against the action initiated by respondent No.6, which according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and without authority of law.

¶34

It is the case of the respondents that, pursuant to a public complaint, respondent No.6 conducted an inspection and, upon verification, found that the petitioner was carrying on business by encroaching upon a portion of the Rajakaluve (storm water drain). In view of the encroachment, respondent No.6 is stated to have initiated appropriate enforcement measures, which culminated in the seizure of second-hand furniture and household items that were being displayed for sale on the encroached portion.

¶35

Aggrieved by the above action, the petitioner

¶36

has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking two-fold reliefs. Firstly, the petitioner

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:19970 WP No. 11469 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

seeks a direction to respondents No.1 to 5 to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.6, alleging abuse of power and highhandedness. Secondly, the petitioner seeks a direction to the authorities for return of the seized furniture and household articles.

¶41

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 has filed a memo stating that the second prayer sought by the petitioner has been complied with. It is submitted that the seized second-hand furniture and household items have already been returned to the petitioner, upon imposition of a penalty of Rs.1,000/- in accordance with applicable rules and procedures.

¶42

Insofar as the first prayer seeking initiation of departmental enquiry against respondent No.6 is

¶43

concerned, this Court is of the considered view that such relief cannot be granted in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:19970 WP No. 11469 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not extend to issuing directions

¶48

for initiating disciplinary action against public servants.

¶49