Disposed¶48

M/S. Auto Rickshaw Union (R) Hejamadi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2025WP/21486/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (GM-RES) 2025; encroachment of State Highway at Hejamadi, Udupi; eviction/demolition notices by Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (Upa Lokayukta-referenced notice numbers); apprehension of demolition without notice; protection against dispossession without due process; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 registration; MESCOM officials as respondents; reliance on interim orders in W.P.No. 9097/2025; petition disposed, notices not quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without quashing the notices; respondents directed/called upon to ensure the petitioners are not dispossessed without due process. ¶48

M/S. Auto Rickshaw Union (R) Hejamadi Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without quashing the notices; respondents directed/called upon to ensure the petitioners are not dispossessed without due process.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notices issued by the third respondent calling upon the petitioners to vacate the alleged illegal construction encroaching a road should be quashed. +1 more

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the Additional Government Advocate's categorical statement - that the notices were issued because the petitioners were ascertained to have encroached a State Highway, and that statutory action for eviction and demolition would be taken only if the petitioners did not themselves remove the unauthorised constructions - allayed all fears of immediate demolition without notice.

¶48

Key takeaways

On that basis, the petition stood disposed of, with the respondents called upon to ensure that the petitioners are not dispossessed without due process; the impugned notices were not quashed.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (B M Shyam Prasad J., Oral Order), 01-08-2025: In W.P. No. 21486 of 2025 (GM-RES), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, an auto rickshaw union registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and four individuals sought quashing of three notices issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Udupi (Annx-C1 to C3, dated 15.03.2025 and 17.02.2025) calling upon them to vacate 'illegal construction' allegedly encroaching a road. Counsel relied on interim orders in W.P.No. 9097/2025 (Annx-E series) to seek a stay of demolition; the learned AGA stated the notices were issued upon ascertainment of encroachment of a State Highway and that statutory eviction/demolition action would follow only if the petitioners did not themselves remove the unauthorised constructions. Held: the statement allayed all fears of immediate demolition without notice; the petition was disposed of with the respondents called upon to ensure the petitioners are not dispossessed without due process. The notices were not quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21486 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. AUTO RICKSHAW UNION (R) HEJAMADI (R) REGD UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES ACT, 1959 BUS STAND, UDUPI-574103. NEAR HEJAMADI BUS STAND

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. SHEKAR HEJMADI, S/O. SRI. JANU MUKHARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/10, HEJAMADI POST, UDUPI 574103.

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MANJUNATH BHANDARI, S/O. SHEENA BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. HEJAMADI POST, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI 574103.

¶13

GANESH BANGERA, S/O. KORAGA BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. HEJAMADI POST, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI 574103.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

VITTALA,

¶17

S/O. KUDAKA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. HEJAMADI POST, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI 574103.

¶18

SURESH PAI S/O. SADANANDA PAI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. HEJAMADI POST, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI - 574103.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. KIRAN N.,ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶23

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101.

¶24

THE ASSITANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NO.1 SUB DIVISION, CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD, BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI-574154.

¶25

THE SUPERITENDENTING ENGINEER, MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, 2^ND FLOOR, MESCOM BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOM, KAVOOR CROSS ROAD, BEJAI,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

MANGALORE-575004.

¶30

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O AND M), MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, SRIDEVI COMPLEX, PADUBIDIRI, UDUPI 574111.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.RAGHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶33

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. SA.KA.EM/ LOEUV/ UDUPI/ ANADIKRUTHA ATHIKRAMANA/ HEJAMADI/ UPA LOKAYUKTA/ 202425/A.E(KA) 3659-66 DATED 15.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE P-1 APPENDED VIDE ANNX-C1; QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. SA.KA.EM/ LOEUV/ UDUPI/ANADIKRUTHA ATHIKRAMANA/HEJAMADI/UPA LOKAYUKTA/2024-25/A.E(KA) 3411-17 DTD. 17.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE P-2 APPENDED VIDE ANNX-C2; QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. SA.KA.EM/ LOEUV/ UDUPI/ ANADIKRUTHA ATHIKRAMANA/HEJAMADI/ UPA LOKAYUKTA/202425/A.E(KA) 3425-31 DATED 17.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE P-3 APPENDED VIDE ANNX-C3 AND ETC.

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶35

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

The petitioners are issued with the impugned notices, and they assert that this Court must quash these notices and direct the second and the third respondents to extend them sufficient opportunity. It is seen from the impugned notices that the third respondent has called upon the petitioners to vacate what is described as an illegal construction put up encroaching a road.

¶42

If Sri Kiran N, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the interim orders granted by this Court in W.P.No. 9097/2025 and two other matters as per Annexure-E series , argues that this Court must stay demolition, Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is instructed by the third respondent, is categorical that notices have been issued because it is ascertained that the petitioners have encroached a State Highway

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

and that if the petitioners do not themselves remove the unauthorised constructions, action will be taken under the relevant statute for eviction and

¶47

demolition.

¶48

This Court is of the considered view that this statement allays all fears of immediate demolition without immediate demolition or demolition without notice. As such, the petition stands disposed calling upon the respondents to ensure that the petitioners are not dispossessed without due process.

¶49

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

M/S. Auto Rickshaw Union (R) Hejamadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Auto Rickshaw Union (R) Hejamadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nirupama. K. C. Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Nain Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr M B Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Deverama @ Parvathama Vs the State of Karnataka

R Devashritha (Since Deceased on 07.08.2018) by His Legal Representatives D Sumithra Vs N/S Chandra Exhibitors

Nanja Raju Vs Sri. Manche Gowda