Disposed¶35

Smt Vijaya Lakshmi v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2025WP/14083/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ of mandamus; representation decided by competent authority; endorsement Annexure-R3; Grama Panchayat; House List No. 174/1; Y. Hunasenahalli; Shidlaghatta Taluk; Chikkaballapur Zilla Panchayath; Article 226; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; liberty to challenge endorsement; writ petition disposed; Karnataka High Court; 2025:KHC:19907; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement at Annexure-R3, if so advised, in accordance with law; the writ petition otherwise stood disposed of as the mandamus prayer did not survive. ¶35

Smt Vijaya Lakshmi Vs the Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19907 WP No. 14083 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 14083 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O K.M. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KADARINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 104.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,

¶15

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO), ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHIKKABALLAPUR, ZILLA ADALITHA BHAVANA, SHIDLAGATTA ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK, SHIDLAGATTA - 562 101.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19907 WP No. 14083 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, Y. HUNASENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI,

¶21

Y. HUNASENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK.

¶22

HUNASENAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS

¶23

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, Y HUNASENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS SCRETARY, H.S. SHASHIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU FOR R3 AND 4; SRI. S. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF R-4 RELATING TO THE PROPERTY BEARING HOUSE LIST NO. 174/1 OF Y. HUNASENAHALLI AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4/Grama Panchayat has filed a statement of objections. Along with the objections, an endorsement issued by the Grama

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:19907 WP No. 14083 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Panchayat in response to the petitioner’s representation, as evidenced at Annexure-R3, has been placed on record.

¶34

Upon perusal of the said endorsement, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s representation has been examined and a decision has been taken by the competent authority. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said endorsement was issued during the pendency of the writ petition and after notice was issued to the respondents, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. Once the representation is duly considered and decided by the competent authority, the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus does not survive for further consideration.

¶35

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement at Annexure-R3, if so advised, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶37

HDK

¶38

CT: BHK

Smt Vijaya Lakshmi v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vijaya Lakshmi v. the Principal Secretary

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 Narasimhamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nasrina Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Anitha J Vs the Commissioner

Mrs Jenevive Rodrigues Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Sri.Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B.S. Praveena Vs State of Karnataka