Satheesh Chandra Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48004 WP No. 22933 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22933 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SATHEESH CHANDRA

¶8

S/O. LATE H. D. THATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROPRIETOR SLN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 706, 7^TH FLOOR, 2^ND BLOCK, KRISHNA APARTMENT, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MUHAMMAD SHAMIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICES, K. H. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027.

¶16

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER (COMMERCIAL), CENTRAL OFFICES, KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027.

¶17

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KEMPEGOWDA BUS STATION, SUBHASHNAGARA,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:48004 WP No. 22933 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BANGALORE – 560 009.

¶22

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, KEMPEGOWDA BUS STATION, SUBHASHNAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 009.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5; SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA, FOR R1)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 17.07.2025 VIDE BEARING NO. KARASA/KEMBANI/VINI/VANIJYA/373/25-26 E-TENDER NO. 3/25-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT 4 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FORMING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 23.05.2013, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, DISCRIMINATORY, AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RENEW THE PETITIONER’S LICENSE DATED 23.05.2013, FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 12 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS EXPIRY ON 22.05.2025, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT, IN ORDER TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶26

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

¶27

ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS DETAILED REPRESENTATION DATED 10.03.2025, SEEKING EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE PERIOD, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-D, AND TO PASS SUITABLE ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND FAIR PLAY AND ETC.,

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:48004 WP No. 22933 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURHTER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶34

following prayer:

¶35

a. “Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the tender notification dated 17.07.2025 vide bearing no. Karasa/Kembani/Vini/Vanijya/373/25-26 E- Tender No. 3/25-26 issued by the Respondent 4 in respect of the Schedule Property forming the subject matter of the License Agreement dated 23.05.2013, produced as Annexure-H, as being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶36

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to renew the petitioner’s license dated 23.05.2013, for a further period of 12 years from the date of its expiry on 22.05.2025, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A, considering the recommendation made by the fourth respondent to the third respondent, in order to secure the ends of justice.

¶37

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

¶38

c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s detailed representation dated 10.03.2025, seeking extension of the license period, a copy of which is produced herewith as Annexure-D,

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:48004 WP No. 22933 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

and to pass suitable orders in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.

¶43

d. Issue such other writ, order, or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding costs of this writ petition, in order to secure the ends of justice.”

¶44

Heard Sri Vikram Huligol, learned Senior Counsel, along with Sri Muhammad Shamil, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M. Rajakumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Smt. H. R. Renuka, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶45

What drives the petitioner to this Court is the action of the respondent-Corporation proposing to cancel the allotment of the commercial space standing in favour of the petitioner. In those circumstances, on 05.08.2025, this Court passed an interim order protecting the interest of the petitioner.

¶46

The interim order granted on 05.08.2025 was again extended by a detailed order dated 24.09.2025. Those orders are subsisting even today.

¶47

This order is passed owing to the peculiar circumstances narrated in the order dated 24.09.2025. In that light, this order shall not open a Pandora’s box, nor shall it be

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:48004 WP No. 22933 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

treated as a precedent for any other leaseholder of the Corporation.

¶52

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the 2^nd respondent–Managing Director of the Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for extension, as is done in every case where tenders for commercial premises are allotted and extended owing to similar circumstances, it would suffice for the present.

¶53

Learned counsel Smt. H. R. Renuka, appearing for the Corporation, on instructions, accepts the submission and states that they would consider the case of the petitioner for extension of the lease of the commercial premises, as is done in several cases. She further submits that if a direction is issued to consider the matter in accordance with law, it would be acceptable.

¶54

In the light of the aforesaid submissions of both learned counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent–Managing Director of the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for extension of the lease of the commercial

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:48004 WP No. 22933 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

premises, as is done in a plethora of similar cases, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶59

Such consideration shall be made within an outer

¶60

limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier. The petitioner is reserved liberty to approach this Court in the event of need in future.

¶61

The petitioner is at liberty to seek revival of this petition in the event the Corporation does not consider the petitioner’s case.

¶62

Ordered accordingly.

¶63

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶64

AC

¶65

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Satheesh Chandra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh Chandra 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Vs the Director

Vitthal Nagappa Khot Vs the Executive Engineer (Ele)

Sri Parappa I Hulakund Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mathad Gurubasavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Jilani Havaldar S.O. Imamsab Havaldar Vs State Bank of India

Smt B.S.Pushpabai Vs the Disciplinary and Chief Executive Officer