Disposed¶46

Sri. Ravindra v. Managing Director

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025WP/18482/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:43844; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Suraj Govindaraj J; WP No. 18482 of 2024 (GM-RES); decided 29.10.2025; writ of mandamus; non-consideration of representations dated 24.01.2024 and 11.07.2024 (Annexure-E series); Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.; National Highway Authority of India; Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; direction to consider representation within four weeks; joint inspection of property by respondent No.5; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus to respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.07.2024 and pass necessary orders within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, with a joint inspection of the property by respondent No.5 before any orders are passed. ¶46

Sri. Ravindra Vs Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing Respondents No.2 and 3 to 5 to consider the Petitioner's representations dated 24.01.2024 and 11.07.2024 (Annexure-E, E1, E2, E3). +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the representation; it is respondents No.3 to 5 who are required to consider it.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Though the writ petition was filed on the very same day the representation dated 11.07.2024 was submitted, the matter having been taken up, a suitable direction could nonetheless be issued to respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the representation.

¶44

Key takeaways

A mandamus is issued directing respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the representation dated 11.07.2024 and pass necessary orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶47
Before passing any orders on the representation, a joint inspection of the property is to be conducted by respondent No.5.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No.2 and 3 to 5 (Deputy Chief Engineer, BMRCL; Regional Officer/Chief Engineer, NHAI; Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, NHAI) to consider his representations dated 24.01.2024 and 11.07.2024 (Annexure-E series). Held: (i) respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the representation, consideration devolving on respondents No.3 to 5; (ii) although the petition was filed on the very same day the later representation was submitted, the matter having been taken up, a suitable direction could issue. Mandamus issued to respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the representation dated 11.07.2024 and pass necessary orders within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, with a joint inspection of the property by respondent No.5 before any orders. Petition disposed of (Suraj Govindaraj J).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43844 WP No. 18482 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 18482 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RAVINDRA S/O. GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 68/4, BEHIND SRI BALAMURI GANAPATHI TEMPLE, BEGURU ROAD,BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MOHANKUMARA D, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶17

REGIONAL OFFICER, CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 060.

¶18

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43844 WP No. 18482 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SUBRAMANI NAGAR, GUDDADHANALLI, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶23

DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN, KANDAYA BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI M.N HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT. SHOBITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R-6 & R-7; SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R-4 (MA NOT FILED) V/O DATED 11/7/2024)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2,R-3 TO R-5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24.01.24 AND 11.07.24 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, E1, E2, E3.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶31

following reliefs;

¶32

a. "Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2, 3 to 5 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 24.01.2024 and 11.07.2024 vide Annexure-E, E1, E2, E3.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43844 WP No. 18482 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

b. Pass such other order or orders if it is deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representations of the petitioner dated 24.01.2024 and 11.07.2024 at Annexure-E series have not been considered by respondents No.2, 3 to 5.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the said representation, it would only be respondents No.3 to 5 who would have to consider the said representation.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 submit that the representation itself was submitted on 11.07.2024 and the writ petition was filed on the very same day. The petitioner could not have filed the writ petition on the very same day alleging that the respondents have not considered the

¶39

representation.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:43844 WP No. 18482 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Having heard all the counsels and perusal of all papers would also indicate that there is one other representation of the petitioner dated 24.01.2024, which not being considered, as also representation has submitted on 11.07.2024 to respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the matter.

¶44

Though the representations have been submitted on 11.07.2024 and the petition has been filed on 11.07.2024 itself, the matter having been taken up today, I am of the considered opinion that a suitable direction could be issued to the respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the representation dated 11.07.2024. as such, I pass the following;

¶45

ORDER

¶46