Sri. J Viswanatha Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. J Viswanatha Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 03/06/2025 and allot the quarters bearing House No.A105/2 at Jeevanbeemanagar, with consequential quashing of any allotment of the same to other applicants, contrary to this Court's decision in W.P.No. 10169/2007.

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the circumstances placed on record by the respondents - that in terms of the applicable rules the petitioner cannot insist upon allotment of a particular quarters; that an applicant of 12.03.2025, prior in time, has been allotted the quarters insisted upon; that the petitioner sought first-floor quarters as specially abled supporting parents aged 80 and 75; and that he already holds quarters No.120/2, also on the first floor - this Court opined the petitioner's grievances are addressed, and accordingly disposed of the petition without intervening.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - disposed of without intervention: Petitioner (employee, Department of Youth Empowerment, Sports and Revenue Department) sought mandamus to compel allotment of quarters bearing House No.A105/2 at Jeevan Beemanagar per his representation dated 03/06/2025, with consequential quashing of any allotment to other applicants, invoking his earlier WP No.10169/2007 [LB-BMP] in which the Court had quashed office orders and directed the allotment Committee to consider his request. The Additional Government Advocate placed on record that (i) under the applicable rules an employee cannot insist upon a particular quarters, (ii) an applicant of 12.03.2025, earlier than the petitioner, has been allotted the quarters sought, (iii) the petitioner sought first-floor quarters claiming he is specially abled and supports parents aged 80 and 75, and (iv) he is currently allotted quarters No.120/2, also on the first floor. Holding that these circumstances showed the petitioner's grievances were addressed, the Court (B M Shyam Prasad, J.) disposed of the petition without intervening; no relief was granted.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33397 WP No. 24795 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24795 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. J VISWANATHA GOWDA S/O C V JAYARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 135/3, KPWD QUARTERS, BEHIND TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, JEEVABHIMANAGARA, BENGALURU 560075.

WORKING AT INTERNAL FINANCIAL ADVISOR

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH EMPOWERMENT SPORTS, AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, NO. 234, 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND GATE, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.

(BY SRI. ADINARAYANAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

…PETITIONER

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 335, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33397 WP No. 24795 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, NUNEGUNDLAPALLI, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE GOVT HOUSING ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K R CIRCLE BENGALURU 560001.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO. 06, BUILDING DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K R CIRCLE BENGALURU 560001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE ON DATED 03/06/2025 AND ALLOT THE QUARTERS BEARING HOUSE NO.A105/2 AT JEEVANBEEMANAGAR REQUESTED AS IN THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREA; B) CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ANY ALLOTMENT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT IF ANY CONSEQUENTLY APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33397 WP No. 24795 of 2025

HC-KAR

OTHER APPLICANTS AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO. 10169/2007.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is in employment with the Department of Youth Empowerment, Sports and Revenue Department and his representation is for allotment of residential quarters in Jeevan Bheemanagar. The petitioner was before this Court in WP No.10169/2007 [ LB-BMP ] for directions for allotment of residential quarters calling in question certain office orders. This Court has intervened quashing the orders calling in question therein directing the Committee constituted for allotment to consider the petitioner's request. However, that may be besides the point because the petitioner's present

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33397 WP No. 24795 of 2025

HC-KAR

grievance stems from an application filed by him in the month of June 2025 for the allotment of a particular premises in No.A105/2. In answering the petitioner’s grievance and request for mandamus, Mrs.Navya Shekhar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, places on record a compilation of documents in support of the respondent’s case that;

[a] in terms of the applicable rules, the petitioner cannot insist upon the allotment of a particular quarters,

[b] another employee has filed an application on 12.03.2025 much

before the petitioner to whom the quarters insisted upon by the petitioner is allotted,

[c] the petitioner requests for an allotment in the first floor

contending that he is specially abled and he has to support his parents

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33397 WP No. 24795 of 2025

HC-KAR

who are aged 80 years and 75 years

respectively,

[d] the petitioner is currently allotted quarters in No.120/2 which is also

in the first floor.

This Court opines that the afore circumstances show the petitioner's grievances are addressed and therefore the petition stands disposed of without intervening.

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA ct:sr