Dismissed¶58

Smt. Mannamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025WP/30738/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Udasalamma Devi Temple (Kodamma); Tippur/Thippuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur; rotation pooja; mandamus to Tahsildar Gubbi (respondent No.4); representation dtd.22/9/2025; Annexures A, C, D, F, G, H; DVS/CR/182/95-96; DVS/CR/17/2008-09; DVS/CR/114/2019-20; W.A.No.1296/2009; WP 52887-52888/2017 c/w W.P.No.41167/2011; State of Karnataka Department of Religious and Charitable Endowments; Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn on memo dated 18.11.2025; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; Justice Suraj Govindaraj; order dated 18.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Accepting the memo dated 18.11.2025 filed by learned counsel for the petitioners seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Smt. Mannamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:47285 WP No. 30738 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 30738 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MANNAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE CHIKKA KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS (SR. CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶11

SRI. RAJANNA

¶12

S/O LATE CKIKKA KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶13

(SR. CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶14

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI. CHANDRAIAH S/O LATE CKIKKA KEMPAIAH

¶17

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶18

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE CKIKKA KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶19

SRI. KARIYANNA S/O LATE CKIKKA KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47285 WP No. 30738 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O PATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶23

(SR. CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶24

SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE PATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶25

SRI. VISHWANATH S/O LATE PATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶26

ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIPPURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 562 216.

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶31

THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶32

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION

¶33

TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47285 WP No. 30738 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

THE TASHILDAR GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 106.

¶37

SRI. CHANDRAIAH S/O LATE KEMPANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶38

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE DODDA KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶39

RESPONDENT NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE R/AT THIPPURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DIST. – 572 216.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. R.RAKESHKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6)

¶42

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DTD.22/9/2025 PERMITTING THE PETITIONERS TO CONTINUE TO PERFORM THE POOJA OF UDASALAMMA DEVI TEMPLE, (KODAMMA) TIPPUR VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT ON ROTATION BASIS VIDE ANNEXURE H AND AS PER THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DTD.13/7/2009 IN AND THE ORDER W.A.NO.1296/2009 AND THE ORDER DATED DTD.28/2/2009 MADE IN WP 52887-52888/2017 C/W. W.P. NO.41167/2011 UNDER ANNEXURE F AND G AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR, DTD.17/4/1999 IN CASE NO.DVS/CR/182/95-96 UNDER ANNEXURE-A, FOLLOWED BY THE ORDER DTD.17/3/2009 IN NO.DVS/CR/17/2008-09 PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TALUK GUBBI UNDER

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47285 WP No. 30738 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER DTD. 10/1/2020 PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR IN NO.DVS/CR/114/2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURED.

¶46

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

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

The petitioners are before this court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶50

" a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to consider the representation of the petitioners dtd.22/9/2025 permitting the petitioners to continue to perform the pooja of Udasalamma Devi Temple, (Kodamma) Tippur Village, Gubbi Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur District on rotation basis vide Annexure H and as per the directions issued by this Honble Court dtd.13/7/2009 in W.A.No.1296/2009 and the order dated dtd.28/2/2009 made in WP 5288752888/2017 c/w. W.P.No.41167/2011 under Annexure F and G and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub Division, Tumkur, dtd.17/4/1999 in case No.DVS/CR/182/95-96 under Annexure-A, followed by the order dtd.17/3/2009 in No.DVS/CR/17/2008-09 passed by the Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk Gubbi under AnnexureC and the order dtd. 10/1/2020 passed by the Tahsildar in No.DVS/CR/114/2019-20 vide Annexure-D .

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:47285 WP No. 30738 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

b) Issue such other order or direction as may be deemed fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.”

¶55

Memo dated 18.11.2025 has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which reads as under:

¶56

"The petitioner above named seeks the permission of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above writ petition. Hence the petition may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn in the interests of justice."

¶57

Accepting the said memo and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, petition stands

¶58

dismissed as withdrawn .

¶59

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

CBC

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76 CT:SS

Smt. Mannamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mannamma v. the State of Karnataka

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. Venu. D. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

A Hanumantha Char Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Rosmerta Technologies Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Ms J R Shanthala Vs the State of Karnataka

Kolar District Driving Schools Owners Association Vs State of Karnataka

Shri K Y Venkatesh Vs Union of India