Disposed¶53

M.A. Sugandhi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2025WP/21595/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Illegal mining mandamus petition; High Court of Karnataka; decided 17-10-2025; WP No. 21595 of 2025 (GM-MM-S); Survey No. 51, Gajjigarahalli Village, Tumkur District; Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran; mining lease Survey No.53/3 (2 acres); fine Rs.31,00,000/-; non-joinder of alleged violator; bald allegations unsupported; disposal with liberty to submit material to concerned department; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; Vibhu BakhrU, Chief Justice; C.M. Poonacha, J.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued; petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to forward material documents to the concerned department, which is to act if the material warrants an inquiry. ¶53

M.A. Sugandhi Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No mandamus issued; petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to forward material documents to the concerned department, which is to act if the material warrants an inquiry.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to take legal action in respect of Survey No.51 and other survey numbers where Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran is allegedly extracting illegal mining.

¶45

Court's answer

All allegations in the petition were directed against Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran, who was not made a party to the petition, and apart from the bald allegation there was no material placed on record to substantiate them.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to forward any material documents to establish the allegations to the concerned department; if the concerned officials find that the material warrants an inquiry, they shall act accordingly.

¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench of Vibhu BakhrU, Chief Justice and C.M. Poonacha, J.; oral order per the Chief Justice) disposed of Writ Petition No. 21595 of 2025 (GM-MM-S) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus directing the respondents to take legal action against alleged illegal mining by Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran in Survey No. 51, Gajjigarahalli Village (Tumkur District), she purportedly holding a mining lease only for 2 acres in Survey No.53/3. The Court observed that all allegations were directed against Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran, who was not made a party to the petition, and that apart from the bald allegation there was no material on record to substantiate them. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to forward material documents to the concerned department, which is to hold an inquiry if the material warrants one. Reference is also made to an alleged fine of Rs.31,00,000/- said to be exceeded by the extent of the illegal mining.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41403-DB WP No. 21595 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 21595 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M.A. SUGANDHI

¶11

S/O ASHANNA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO. 250, 1^ST FLOOR 5^TH MAIN, 1^ST STAGE MANJUNATHANAGAR RAJAJINAGAR

¶13

BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI RODDA VEERASHETTY BHIMARAO, ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶19

REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

DIRECTOR

¶21

MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT

¶22

KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD

¶23

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶24

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41403-DB WP No. 21595 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶27

TUMKUR - 572 104.

¶28

COMMISSIONER

¶29

COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE SY.NO.51 AND OTHER SURVEY NUMBERS WHERE SMT. BHARATHI RAVICHANDRAN IS EXTRACTING THE ILLEGAL MINING OPERATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 02/12/2024 & ETC.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶37

Issue notice. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:41403-DB WP No. 21595 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying

¶42

as under:

¶43

"PRAYER

¶44

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

¶45

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take legal action in respect of the Sy.No.51 and other survey numbers where Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran, is extracting the illegal mining operation vide Annexure A dated 02-12-2024

¶46

(b) Issue any other writ or order or direction as deemed fit to grant in the facts circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity".

¶47

It is the petitioner's case that one Smt. Bharathi

¶48

Ravichandran has been illegally carrying on mining activities in Survey No. 51 located at Gajjigarahalli Village. The said land is government land and Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran does not hold any mining lease in respect of the said land. The petitioner has also annexed the legal notice, inter alia, stating that Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran holds mining lease in respect of land measuring 2 acres in survey No.53/3. It is alleged that the said land does not have any mining material and is now filled up with mud. Therefore, the lease holder is illegally mining in the adjacent areas. It is also

¶49

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41403-DB WP No. 21595 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

alleged that the respondents have imposed a fine of Rs.31,00,000/-, but the illegal mining carried on by the said mine owner, far exceeds the amount of penalty levied.

¶52

It is noticed that all allegations are directed against Smt. Bharathi Ravichandran. She is not made a party to the present petition. Apart from the bald allegation, there is no material placed on record to substantiate the same.

¶53

In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by permitting the petitioner to forward any material documents to establish the allegations to the concerned department. Needless to state that if the concerned officials find that the material supplied by the petitioner warrants an inquiry, they shall act accordingly.

¶54

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶56

SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

M.A. Sugandhi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A. Sugandhi v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gnaneshwara M Vs State of Karnataka

Huchire Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Examination Authority Vs Union of India

Hanesbrands Apparel India Private Limited Vs Nil

Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Vs the Chief Secretary

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Prakash Basavaraj Alur