Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri Mahalakshmi (Samskruthika Kala Halli… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Sri Mahalakshmi (Samskruthika Kala Halli Sambrama) DSri Mahalakshmi (Samskruthika Kala Halli Sambrama) Devasthan

Allowed¶43

Sri Mahalakshmi (Samskruthika Kala Halli Sambrama) Devasthanda Seva Samithi Trust (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025WP/13191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC writ petition (Articles 226 & 227) by a village temple trust (Devasthanda Seva Samithi Trust, Sathanur, Mandya) seeking enforcement of a departmental direction. Keywords: mandamus; compliance with direction of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments; Tahasildar Mandya Taluk to dispose of complaint/representation within 30 days; duty to pass orders accepting or rejecting complaint; reasons mandatory for rejection; non-consideration of representation dated 12-01-2024 referred vide Sa Mu Sa/AaKaa/753/2024; direction in Comp.No. 1326508 dated 11-03-2024; NC: 2025:KHC:50530.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk) to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Why is it important?

When a specific direction has been issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4, it is required for respondent No.4 to consider the same and pass orders within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the complaint. ¶35

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandamus issued directing respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk) to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk) should be directed by mandamus to consider the petitioner's complaint and pass necessary orders pursuant to the direction issued by the office of respondent No.2 dated 11-03-2024.

Court's answer

When a specific direction has been issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4, it is required for respondent No.4 to consider the same and pass orders within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the complaint.

Ratio / Principle

If an order of rejection is passed, it must be accompanied by reasons; neither consideration nor a reasoned rejection having occurred, the Court issued the mandamus.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Suraj Govindaraj J), WP No. 13191 of 2024 (GM-R/C), decided 03-12-2025: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Sri Mahalakshmi (Samskruthika Kala Halli Sambrama) Devasthanda Seva Samithi Trust allowed. The Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk (respondent No.4) had failed to consider the petitioner's complaint despite a specific direction from the office of the Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (respondent No.2) in Comp.No. 1326508 dated 11-03-2024. The Court held that where such a direction is issued, the recipient authority must consider the matter and pass orders, either accepting or rejecting the complaint, within a reasonable time, and that any order of rejection must be accompanied by reasons. A mandamus was issued directing respondent No.4 to consider the complaint and pass necessary orders within 30 days of receipt of the order.

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:50530 WP No. 13191 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13191 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

SRI MAHALAKSHMI (SAMSKRUTHIKA KALA HALLI SAMBRAMA) DEVASTHANDA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) SATHANURU VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI CHENNAKESHAVA S/O LATE JAVARAYI HEGGADE AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SATHANURU VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT-571401

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIJAY SHETTY B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BAHVANA, ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560018.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50530 WP No. 13191 of 2024

HC-KAR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571401.

THE TAHASILDAR MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA -3, CIRCLE, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

SRI. BEERESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE UMMADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ TAHASILDAR

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS TO DIRECT THE R4 HEREIN TO COMPLY THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE OFFICE OF THE R2 TO THE R4 HEREIN IN COMP.NO. 1326508 FILE NO. HRICE-ADMOCMISC/76/24 DATED: 11.03.24 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, BASED ON THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER HERE IN VIDE LETTER DATED: 12.01.24 WHICH WAS REFERRED TO THE R2 VIDE NO. SA MU SA/AAKAA/753/24 DATED: 30.01.24 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IMMEDIATELY AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

a. Call for records;

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50530 WP No. 13191 of 2024

HC-KAR

b. To direct the respondent No. 4 herein to comply the direction given by the office of the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.4 herein in Comp.No.: 1326508 File No.: HRICE-ADMOMISC/76/2024 dated 11-03- 2024, Vide ANNEXURE-B, based on the representation given by the petitioner herein vide letter dated 12-01-2024, which was referred to the respondent No. 2 vide No. Sa Mu Sa/AaKaa/753/2024 dated 30-01-2024 vide ANNEXURE- A, immediately,

c. Pass such other order or direction or grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case`

The grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint which has been filed by the petitioner which was considered by respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 had directed respondent No.4 to consider and pass necessary orders, has not been so considered, no order has been passed.

When a specific direction had been issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4 it was but required for respondent No.4 to consider the same and pass orders within reasonable period of time. Either accepting or rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50530 WP No. 13191 of 2024

HC-KAR

4. Needless to say, if an order of rejection is passed,

the same would have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done, I pass the following;

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .

ii. A mandamus is issued, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.

SD/-

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk) should be directed by mandamus to consider the petitioner's complaint and pass necessary orders pursuant to the direction issued by the office of respondent No.2 dated 11-03-2024.¶32
The court held
When a specific direction has been issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4, it is required for respondent No.4 to consider the same and pass orders within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the complaint.ratio¶35

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶23 Article 227¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Not an adverse order but administrative inaction: respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk) failed to consider the petitioner's complaint and pass any order despite the direction issued by the office of respondent No.2 (Commissioner) in Comp.No.: 1326508 File No.: HRICE-ADMOMISC/76/2024 dated 11-03-2024 (Annexure-B).¶34
Respondent No.4 - Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk
Prior proceeding
Petitioner gave a representation/complaint by letter dated 12-01-2024, which was referred to respondent No.2 (Commissioner) vide No. Sa Mu Sa/AaKaa/753/2024 dated 30-01-2024 (Annexure-A).¶32
Prior proceeding
Office of respondent No.2 issued a direction to respondent No.4 in Comp.No. 1326508, File No. HRICE-ADMOCMISC/76/24 dated 11.03.24 (Annexure-B) to consider the complaint and pass necessary orders.¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sri Mahalakshmi (Samskruthika Kala Halli Sambrama) Devasthanda Seva Samithi Trust (R), Sathanur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk & District, rep. by its Secretary Sri Chennakeshava¶8
Vijay Shetty B.
respondent
The State of Karnataka, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, Bengaluru (Respondent No.1)¶13
B Ravindranath
respondent
The Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, Bengaluru (Respondent No.2)¶14
B Ravindranath
respondent
The Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District (Respondent No.3)¶17
B Ravindranath
respondent
The Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District (Respondent No.4)¶18
B Ravindranath
respondent
The Revenue Inspector, Kasaba-3 Circle, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District (Respondent No.5)¶19
B Ravindranath
respondent
Sri. Beereshwara Swamy Temple, Ummadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District, rep. by its Executive Officer/Tahasildar (Respondent No.6)¶20
B Ravindranath

Coram

AI extract

Suraj Govindarajauthor¶25

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 3 Dec 2025 · December
Registered: 14 May 2024
Case no.: WP/13191/2024
CNR: KAHC010250742024
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Suraj Govindara
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: WRIT PETITION (GM-R/C)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Suraj Govindara

M/S Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka
2 Dec 2025
Sirimane Enclave Recreation Club Vs the State of Karnataka
2 Dec 2025
The Merchants Club (Rgd) Vs the State of Karnataka
2 Dec 2025
M/S. Maha Mysore Boat Building Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka
3 Dec 2025
Deavaraju M Vs the State of Karnataka
3 Dec 2025
Jyothsna Amin Vs Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (Mrpl)
3 Dec 2025

Cite this judgement

Sri Mahalakshmi (Samskruthika Kala Halli Sambrama) Devasthanda Seva Samithi Trust (R) v. the State of Karnataka, WP/13191/2024 (KA), decided on 3 December 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 227

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Not an adverse order but administrative inaction: respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk) failed to consider the petitioner's complaint and pass any order despite the direction issued by the office of respondent No.2 (Commissioner) in Comp.No.: 1326508 File No.: HRICE-ADMOMISC/76/2024 dated 11-03-2024 (Annexure-B).Respondent No.4 - Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk
Petitioner gave a representation/complaint by letter dated 12-01-2024, which was referred to respondent No.2 (Commissioner) vide No. Sa Mu Sa/AaKaa/753/2024 dated 30-01-2024 (Annexure-A).
Office of respondent No.2 issued a direction to respondent No.4 in Comp.No. 1326508, File No. HRICE-ADMOCMISC/76/24 dated 11.03.24 (Annexure-B) to consider the complaint and pass necessary orders.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Suraj Govindaraj

Parties & counsel