Dismissed¶52

Mr. Herald Joan Monteiro v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2025WP/23546/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Door number assignment; Neermarga Grama Panchayat resolution 07.01.2016; Annexure-H; Annexure-D; foundational order unchallenged; piecemeal challenge to administrative decisions; maintainability of writ petition; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; Mangalore Urban Development Authority; W.P.No.16331/2012; W.P.No.14019/2014; Co-ordinate Bench order dated 14.08.2014; LB-RES; Karnataka High Court 2025; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner has neither challenged the prior order passed by respondent No.3 on his representation nor provided substantive grounds to impeach its validity; that order forms the foundational basis for the subsequent resolution assigning the door number. ¶43

Mr. Herald Joan Monteiro Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition directly assailing the resolution (Annexure-H) assigning a door number to respondent No.4's property is maintainable when the petitioner has neither challenged the foundational order passed by respondent No.3 on his representation nor pleaded grounds against it.

¶43

Court's answer

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The law does not permit a piecemeal challenge to administrative decisions when a prior binding order has gone unchallenged; a challenge to a consequential resolution, unsupported by a prior challenge to the original order, is legally untenable.

¶49

Key takeaways

In the absence of any averment, much less a specific plea, indicating that the petitioner questioned the legality or propriety of the earlier order passed by respondent No.3, the writ petition seeking to directly assail the resolution at Annexure-H is rendered unsustainable in law.ratio¶49
The petition, being devoid of a challenge to the foundational order and lacking any cogent explanation for the omission thereof, is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum J.), 03.06.2025, dismissed W.P.No.23546/2016 (LB-RES) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by an adjoining property owner challenging the resolution dated 07.01.2016 of respondent No.3/Neermarga Grama Panchayat assigning a door number to respondent No.4's residential house (Annexure-H). The petitioner had earlier litigated twice over the same construction: W.P.No.16331/2012 was disposed with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to consider his representation, and W.P.No.14019/2014 was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 14.08.2014 on the view that his representation stood decided and he ought to have appealed. The impugned resolution followed an earlier order by respondent No.3 on the petitioner's representation (Annexure-D). Holding that the petitioner had neither challenged that foundational order nor pleaded any grounds against it, and that the law does not permit a piecemeal challenge to administrative decisions where a prior binding order has gone unchallenged, the Court found a challenge to the consequential resolution alone legally untenable, the writ petition unsustainable and not maintainable, and dismissed it.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18666 WP No. 23546 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23546 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. HERALD JOAN MONTEIRO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE GEORGE MONTERIO, R/AT HOUSE NO. 3-128, MARY GOLD, PEDAMALAI POST, NEERMARGA VILLAGE, MANGALORE-575 029.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KESHAVA REDDY M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MANGALORE TALUK-575 006.

¶14

THE PRESIDENT NEERMARGA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEERMARGA-575 029, MANGALORE.

¶15

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NEERMARGA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEERMARGA-575 029, MANGALORE.

¶16

MRS. MABEL D'SOUZA

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18666 WP No. 23546 of 2016

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

WIFE OF MR. ARWIN RODRIGUES, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEERMARGA PADAVU HOUSE, PEDAMALAI POST, NEERMARGA VILLAGE-575 029, MANGALORE.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA PONIYALA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SRI SHARANJITH SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND SMT. MAMATHA ROY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ORIGINAL RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS PERTAINING TO THIS CASE AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed assailing the resolution dated 07.01.2016 passed by respondent No.3/Neermarga Grama Panchayat, thereby assigning a door number to the property owned by respondent No.4.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶28

learned standing counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. Perused the records.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18666 WP No. 23546 of 2016

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

On examining the records, it is noticed that the respondent No.4 having secured a building license, has constructed a residential house. The petitioner herein, assailing the construction of the building on the premises that it is in violation of license and sanction of building plan issued by respondents No.2 and 3, knocked the doors of this court in W.P.No.16331/2012. This Court, disposed of the writ petition directing respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation and take appropriate action.

¶32

The counsel appearing for the grama panchayat submits that the construction undertaken by the respondent No.4 strictly adheres to the approved building plan and license and therefore they have not contemplated any action against respondent No.4.

¶33

Be that as it may. Records reveal that the petitioner again approached this Court by filing a W.P.No. 14019/2014. This Court in the second round of litigation,

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18666 WP No. 23546 of 2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

however, was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Co-ordinate bench, vide order dated 14.08.2014, taking note of the statement made by the counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, held that the petitioner's representation is decided and therefore the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal in a manner known to law. Without granting any indulgence, that writ petition is dismissed.

¶37

It is evident from the records that Respondent No.3 has passed a resolution assigning a door number to the residential house constructed by Respondent No.4, the said resolution being annexed to the petition as AnnexureH. This resolution appears to have been passed following the completion of the construction work undertaken by Respondent No.4. It is also pertinent to note that this resolution by Respondent No.3 was preceded by an earlier order passed by the said respondent on a representation submitted by the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure-

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:18666 WP No. 23546 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

D, which forms part of the record and emanates from an

¶42

order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶43

The petitioner, who claims to be the adjoining property owner, has sought to impugn the resolution assigning a door number to Respondent No.4’s property. However, a careful perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner has neither challenged the prior order passed by Respondent No.3 on his representation nor provided any substantive grounds to impeach the validity of such order. The said order forms the foundational basis for the subsequent resolution assigning the door number. Without first assailing the foundational order which apparently rejected or disposed of the petitioner’s objections,it is impermissible for the petitioner to selectively challenge the consequential resolution alone.

¶44

The law does not permit a piecemeal challenge

¶45

to administrative decisions when a prior binding order has gone unchallenged. In the absence of any averment, much

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:18666 WP No. 23546 of 2016

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

less a specific plea, indicating that the petitioner has questioned the legality or propriety of the earlier order passed by Respondent No.3, the present writ petition, which seeks to directly assail the resolution at AnnexureH, is rendered unsustainable in law. A feeble and indirect attempt has been made by the petitioner to question the resolution, but such challenge, unsupported by a prior challenge to the original order, is legally untenable.

¶50

Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of a challenge to the foundational order and lacking any cogent explanation for the omission thereof, is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶51

For the reasons stated so supra, the writ petition is

¶52

devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

HDK

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Mr. Herald Joan Monteiro v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Herald Joan Monteiro v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vinod M L Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Sri K P Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan v Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Rajegowda Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Hasan Vs Koralahalli Grama Panchayat

Sri C Niranjan Vs the Commissioner