Subham International Social Service Trust v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2025WP/17244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ petition (LB-RES); mandamus; direction to consider representations; public toilets and urinals maintenance; agreement and work order dated 27.02.2023; security deposit ₹50,000/-; septic tank and drainage defects; request for ₹1,15,000/-; City Municipal Council Hiriyur; lease amount ₹4,28,000/-; one-month compliance timeline; R. Nataraj J.; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of on these terms. ¶¶37

Subham International Social Service Trust Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-Commissioner can be directed, by way of mandamus, to consider and act upon the petitioner's representations dated 09.06.2023, 17.06.2023, 11.07.2023, 12.07.2023, 14.02.2024, 14.03.2024 and 30.03.2024 regarding defects in the public toilets and urinals maintained by the petitioner under the agreement dated 27.02.2023.

¶¶25

Court's answer

The respondent, being bound in law to address the petitioner's concerns regarding the public toilets and urinals used by the public, was expected to act immediately on the representations.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

If the deficiencies pointed out by the petitioner are genuine, the respondent is bound to rectify them so that the public using the toilets and urinals are not put to inconvenience.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representations as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a registered trust engaged to run public toilets and urinals at four places in Hiriyur City under an agreement and work order dated 27.02.2023 (security deposit ₹50,000/-). Alleging absence of a septic tank, defective drainage and a damaged chamber lid, the petitioner made repeated representations (17.06.2023 to 30.03.2024), including a request for ₹1,15,000/- for water pipes and a wall, which went unaddressed. The Court held the respondent-Commissioner bound in law to address such concerns given public use of the facilities, observed that representations outstanding since 2023 showed apathy, and directed the respondent to consider the representations as early as possible, at any rate within one month of receipt of the order. The respondent had contended the petitioner was attempting to deprive it of lease amounts of ₹4,28,000/- as on 31.10.2025. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42464 WP No. 17244 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17244 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SUBHAM INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE TRUST, VINAYAKA NAGAR, UNDER INDIAN TRUST ACT, NEAR GNANA MANDIR HIGH SCHOOL, GAURIBIDANUR - 561 208 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. MUKTINATH JHA, S/O SHARADANAND JHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH T.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, HIRIYUR - 577 598, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.MAHESH S, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:42464 WP No. 17244 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

09.06.2023 AND 17.06.2023, REPRESENTATION DATED 11.07.2023 AND 12.07.2023 THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.02.2024, 14.03.2024 AND 30.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURES-D, E, F, G, H, J AND K AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representations dated 09.06.2023, 17.06.2023, 11.07.2023, 12.07.2023, 14.02.2024, 14.03.2024 and 30.03.2024.

¶26

The petitioner claims that he had entered into an agreement with the respondent on 27.02.2023 to run public toilets and urinals at four places in Hiriyur City. He had also paid the security deposit of ₹50,000/- in favour of the respondent. The respondent had issued a work order dated 27.02.2023. He contends that after he took over the maintenance of the toilet, he found that there was no

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42464 WP No. 17244 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

septic tank, the drainage system was not in order and the chamber lid was damaged. He therefore submitted a representation dated 17.06.2023 to the respondent to rectify the defects. On 11.07.2023, he requested the respondent to sanction a sum of ₹1,15,000/- for installing water pipes from the borewell and bathing room to construct a wall measuring 10 ft x 10 ft. He made a representation dated 12.07.2023, again requesting the respondent to set right the defects. This was followed by representations dated 14.02.2024, 14.03.2024 and 30.03.2024. Despite the above, the respondent did not take any steps. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for direction to the respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders.

¶30

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent, who has filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that the petitioner was satisfied with the conditions at the site and after being satisfied about the infrastructure, had entered into an agreement. It is six

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42464 WP No. 17244 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

months thereafter that the petitioner has raised frivolous complaints. It is claimed that the case of the petitioner in the guise of alleging deficiencies is trying to deprive the respondent of the legitimate lease amount, amounting to the sum of ₹4,28,000/- as on 31.10.2025. The respondent therefore contends that no indulgence is warranted in this writ petition.

¶34

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The fact that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of maintaining the public toilet and urinal is not in dispute. The petitioner claims that there is no septic tank and drainage system and the water facility is in very bad condition. The petitioner had therefore escalated the issue with the respondent and had requested it to rectify the defects. The respondent, who is bound in law to address the concerns of the petitioner, more particularly when the public use these toilets and urinals, was expected to act immediately. The fact that the

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42464 WP No. 17244 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

representations of the petitioner are outstanding from the year 2023 shows the apathy of the respondent towards the maintenance of the public toilets and urinals. If the deficiencies as pointed out by the petitioner are genuine, the respondent is bound to rectify the same so that the public who use these toilets and urinals are not put to any inconvenience. Under these circumstances, the respondent is directed to consider the representations of the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms.

¶38

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Subham International Social Service Trust v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subham International Social Service Trust v. the Commissioner

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

Gundappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Laguma Reddy Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Ratnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Robert Kennady Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M G Manjunath Vs Cheif Executive Officer

Sri Kanthilal Vs the Commissioner