Disposed¶26

Smt. Akshya Shenoy @ M. Akshaya Shenoy v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025WP/36474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976; Section 321(3) confirmation order dated 08.09.2025; Section 443-A appeal before District Judge; writ petition disposed with liberty to appeal within 15 days; interim restraint on Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation; provisional order NAM:MYNAPA/NAYOSHA/TAM(11)/2025-26 vide Annexure-E; WP No. 36474 of 2025 (LB-RES); Justice R. Nataraj; NC: 2025:KHC:50490; HC-KAR.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file an appeal before the District Judge under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 within fifteen days; interim direction to the respondent not to take any further action pursuant to the confirmation order dated 08.09.2025 until then; pending I.As. disposed of. ¶26

Smt. Akshya Shenoy @ M. Akshaya Shenoy Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the confirmation order dated 08.09.2025 passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 should be entertained by this Court, given the statutory appeal remedy under Section 443-A of that Act before the District Judge. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The petition stands disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Judge as provided under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, within a period of fifteen days.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Until then, the respondent is directed not to take any further action pursuant to the confirmation order dated 08.09.2025.

¶26

Key takeaways

The interim protection is only for the limited purpose of enabling the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Judge, and it is open to the petitioner to seek interim relief in the appeal before the District Judge.ratio¶30
In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Smt. Akshya Shenoy @ M. Akshaya Shenoy against the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation, challenging a confirmation order dated 08.09.2025 passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. On the Court pointing out the statutory appeal remedy under Section 443-A of the said Act before the District Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepted the remedy and sought interim protection. Held: petition disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Judge within fifteen days; until then the respondent directed not to take any further action pursuant to the confirmation order dated 08.09.2025; the protection is only for the limited purpose of enabling the appeal, and the petitioner may seek interim relief before the District Judge; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. (R. Nataraj, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50490 WP No. 36474 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36474 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. AKSHYA SHENOY @ M. AKSHAYA SHENOY D/O SRI. MYSORE JAGANNATH SHENOY W/O SRI VINAY RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.967, JLB ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA, MYSORE-570004

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, MYSORE CITY-570001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONAL ORDER BEARING NUMBER NAM:MYNAPA/NAYOSHA/TAM(11)/2025-26 DATED 08.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:50490 WP No. 36474 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged a confirmation order bearing No.ªÉÄÊ£À¥Á/£ÀAiÉÆÃ±Á/vÁA(11)/-/2025-26 dated 08.09.2025

¶24

passed by the respondent under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

¶25

When it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal remedy is provided under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 before the District Judge, the learned counsel fairly accepted it. He submits that he would file an appeal and prays that till the filing of an appeal, the respondent be directed not to take any further action.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid submission, this petition stands disposed off permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Judge as provided under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, within a period of fifteen days from today. Until then, the respondent is directed not to take any further action pursuant to the confirmation order dated 08.09.2025.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:50490 WP No. 36474 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

It is made clear that this protection is only for the limited purpose of enabling the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Judge. It is open for the petitioner to seek interim relief in the appeal that may be filed before the District Judge.

¶31

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶32

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶33

PMR

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Smt. Akshya Shenoy @ M. Akshaya Shenoy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Akshya Shenoy @ M. Akshaya Shenoy v. the Commissioner

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

Sri L Daniel Vs the Commissioner

Shri. S.P Nandishkumar Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Shruthi Jois Vs Mysuru City Corporation

Mr. Udayakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bhagya Jyothi Vidya Samsthe (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Popular Advertisers Vs State of Karnataka