Dr. M. Chowde Gowda Vs the Institution of Engineers (India)

DR. M. CHOWDE GOWDA, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, NO. 86, 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, UAS LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560094

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS (INDIA), 8, GOKHALE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 020.

¶15

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL.

¶16

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS (INDIA), KARNATAKA STATE CENTRE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.03, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001, REP. BY ITS HONORARY CHAIRMAN.

¶18

THE CHAIRMAN, THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS (INDIA), KARNATAKA STATE CENTRE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.03, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

BOARD OF SCRUTINEERS, C/O THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS (INDIA),

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41409 WP No. 30119 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

KARNATAKA STATE CENTRE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.03, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI YOGESH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI S.V GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED E- MAIL DATED 26/09/2025 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-E ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶30

following reliefs;

¶31

a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned e- mail dated 26.09.2025 of the 4^th Respondent and produced herewith at Annexure-E; and

¶32

b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 1 to 4, particularly the 4th respondent to accept the nomination form of the petitioner for elections from Karnataka State Centre to the council for the term 2025-2029 and include his name in the ballot paper list of eligible candidates in whose favour votes can be cast by members of the IEI who are resident of Karnataka and permit the Petitioner to participate in the election from Karnataka State Centre to the Council for the term 2025-2029; and

¶33

c. Costs of this Petition and such other and further appropriate orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41409 WP No. 30119 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

fit to grant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶37

By way of the above writ petition a writ of certiorari is sought for against the institution of Engineers (India), both Centre and State insofar as rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is concerned, as also for positive mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 to include the name of the petitioner in the ballot paper. Thus, essentially what is sought for is issuance of writ against the Institute of Engineers.

¶38

Though learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision in M.Nagaraj -v- The Institution of Engineers (India)¹ submitted that the writ petition is maintainable, a perusal of the writ petition does not indicate any discussion as regards the maintainability of the writ petition against the Institution of Engineers, though the fact remains that a writ petition had been entertained. It is probably on account of the fact that maintainability was not questioned in the said matter. The said order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.

¶39

1 W.P. No.33737/2010 DD 10.08.2025

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:41409 WP No. 30119 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

No.33737/2010 was also confirmed by the learned Division Bench.

¶44

Same will not help the cause of the petitioner insofar as the Institute of Engineers is concerned, which is a central body, the Division Bench of this High Court of Allahabad

¶45

in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava -v- Institution of engineers (India)² has categorically held that a writ against the said Institute of Engineers is not maintainable. The relevant para 29 thereof, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶46

“29. Before us, the learned counsel has cited the decision in Executive committee lof Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain, (1976)2 SCC 58: AIR 1976 SC 888. In this case, the question before the Supreme Court was about the status of the Executive council of a Degree College. This decision of the Supreme Court does not help us in finding that the Institution of Engineers (India) was the body created in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. As we have already pointed out that it was incorporated by a Royal Charter and was not created by any Act. Since respondent 1 does not owe its existence to a statute being not a statutory body, no writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution lies against it.”

¶47

The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ghan Shyam -v- Institution of Engineers (India)

¶48

2 AIR 1986 ALL 251

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41409 WP No. 30119 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

and another³ has also come to a similar conclusion that Institute of Engineers is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Judgment is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶52

“The relief claimed herein against the Institution of engineers (India) which is clearly not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as has been held by our Court in (Shri Kaka Singh Rangi v. The Council of the Institution of Engineers (India), as also by the High Court of Allahabad in Aswini Kumar Srivastava v. The Institution of Engineers.

¶53

Dismissed.”

¶54

When there is a clear and categorical finding of two Division Benches, one of High Court of Allahabad and the other of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, as regards maintainability of writ petition against the Institution of Engineers and those two Division Benches have categorically come to a conclusion that the writ petition is not maintainable, I am unable to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner that in view of the entertainment of writ petition in W.P. No.13373/2010, this Court is required to exercise writ jurisdiction and grant orders which have been sought for.

¶55

3 1993 SCC Online P&H 691

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:41409 WP No. 30119 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The findings of the Hon’ble Allahabad and Punjab and Haryana High Courts being clear and conclusive, the writ petition against the Institution of Engineers not being maintainable, writ petition stands dismissed .

¶60

Needless to say, the interim order stands vacated and there would be no requirement of compliance to be by the respondents.

¶61

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶62

LN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71

Dr. M. Chowde Gowda v. the Institution of Engineers (India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M. Chowde Gowda v. the Institution of Engineers (India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Krishi -Ab-Nc(Jv) Vs Deputy Chief Engineer

Sri. Arun Kumar Puthila Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Eshwarappa Vs Union of India

Mr. Akbar Kaleel Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vasudeva Gadiyar K Vs Canara Bank Ltd.

Smt. Shasikala J S Vs the State of Karnataka