Dismissed¶35

Udaya Kumar H G v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2025WP/52730/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hoarding / advertisement board licence jurisdiction; outdoor advertisement business; Executive Engineer PWD Port and Inland Water Shimoga vs Shivamogga Corporation limits; Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 Section 135 competent authority; writ of certiorari against PWD endorsements dated 25.04.2016 and 20.09.2016; representation dated 21.04.2016; earlier W.P. No.27096/2016 (order dt. 7.04.2016) and W.P. No.20096/2016; petition dismissed with liberty reserved to approach Corporation; WP No. 52730 of 2016 (GM-RES); Justice Suraj Govindaraj; decided 3 March 2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner's property admittedly comes within the corporation limit, Respondent No.2 would not have any jurisdiction to grant licence or permission for erecting advertisement boards and/or to carry on advertisement business. ¶34

Udaya Kumar H G Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9082 WP No. 52730 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 52730 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UDAYA KUMAR H G S/O GOPALA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, UK ADVERTISERS, OUT DOOR ADVERTISING, NO.C.H.106(3) BJP OFFICE COMPLEX, JEWEL ROAK HOTEL ROAD, DURGIGUDI, SHIMOGA-577202

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF P.W.D PORT AND INLAND WATER, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF P.W.D PORT AND INLAND WATER, SUB-DIVISION, SHIMOGA-577202

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA., AGA)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:9082 WP No. 52730 of 2016

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION ANNEX-A DTD.25.4.2016 IN EE/PWD/SPL/DIVISION/SMG/EAST-5/WP-20096/2016 AND COMMUNICATION ANNEX-B DTD.20.9.2016 IN NO. KA EM/LO.E/VIVISHI/C-5 JAHIRATHU PALAKA/ ANUMATHI/201617/1818 BY THE R-2 AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the Communication Annexure-A dated 25.04.2016 in EE/PWD/Spl/Division/Smg/ East-5/WP-20096/2016 and Communication Annexure-B dated 20.09.2016 in No.Ka.Em/ Lo.E/Vivishi/C-5/Jahirathu Palaka/Anumathi/201617/1818 by the 2^nd Respondent.

¶25

b. Issue such other relief’s as it deems fit to grant in favour of the petitioner by this Hon’ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 21.04.2016 said to be in furtherance of the order dated 7.04.2016 in W.P. No.27096/2016. The

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:9082 WP No. 52730 of 2016

¶29

petitioner claims to be in the business of outdoor advertisement, carrying on the business within the limits of the Shivamogga City Municipality which subsequently has been declared as a Corporation. The petitioner after obtaining permission of the landlords had sought to erect hoardings on the property. For the purpose of said erection of the hoarding, the petitioner had approached the respondent No.2 who had rejected the said request. Hence, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No.20096/2016, when this Court had permitted

¶30

the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 135 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 for obtaining licence as may be required. The petitioner however once again made an application to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide endorsement dated 25.04.2016 rejected the same directing the petitioner to approach Shivamogga Corporation. Again on 29.06.2016, a reminder being issued to the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:9082 WP No. 52730 of 2016

¶33

respondent referring to the earlier letter called upon the petitioner to approach the Corporation. Instead of doing so, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

Admittedly, the property of the petitioner comes within the corporation limit. If that be so, respondent No.2 would not have any jurisdiction to grant licence or permission for erecting advertisement boards and/or to carry on advertisement business. It is for the petitioner to have approached the Shivamogga Corporation with necessary application.

¶35

Reserving such liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands dismissed.

¶36

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

Udaya Kumar H G v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaya Kumar H G v. 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

Shravana Kumar D Nayak Vs the Director and Appellate Authority and Ors.

Deepak S/O Mallu Kankonkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vinitha W/O Manohar M Age. Vs the State of Karnataka

Ak Maxx Properties Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. Regional Transport Officer

K L J a Kiran Babu Vs Ms Neelam Dhawan

Mr. A.S. Gupta Vs the Secretary