Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Narayanappa Vs the State of KarnatakaNarayanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Dismissed¶40

Narayanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025WP/53922/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition as withdrawn; withdrawal memo; no adjudication of merits. WP No. 53922 of 2017 (GM-R/C); NC: 2025:KHC:1506; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Justice Jyoti Mulimani; 15 January 2025. Parties: Narayanappa s/o Venkatarayappa (petitioner); State of Karnataka, Department of Muzari; Member Secretary Rajya Darmika Parishath; Commissioner, Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department; Ghatti Shri Subramanya Swamy Temple, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore/Bengaluru Rural District; Pradhan Archaka; individual respondents K. Muniyappa, K.B.Brmarambika, K. Nagarathna, Subramanya Nayak, G.M.Channappa, S.R.Muniraju, M.G.Jagannatha, M. Manjanna. Constitutional basis: Articles 226 and 227. Counsel: Sri R. Kumar (petitioner); Mahantesh Shettar AGA (R1 & R3); B.S. Sachin (R2); Krishnamurthy M.R. (R5); B.S. Shrikantha (R9, R10, R12); R4, R6, R8 served and unrepresented. Undertaking recorded: no recalling of order, no review petition.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioner's own instance. ¶40

Why is it important?

The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn on the oral prayer of the petitioner's counsel supported by a memo, with the oral submission and memo placed on record after counsel affirmed the decision was conscious and that no recalling or review would be sought. ¶40

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioner's own instance.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn on the oral prayer of the petitioner's counsel supported by a memo, with the oral submission and memo placed on record after counsel affirmed the decision was conscious and that no recalling or review would be sought.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru — Writ Petition No. 53922 of 2017 (GM-R/C): Narayanappa s/o Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (Department of Muzari), Member Secretary, Rajya Darmika Parishath and Commissioner, Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department, the Ghatti Shri Subramanya Swamy Temple and its Pradhan Archaka, and other individual respondents. Single order of Ms. Justice Jyoti Mulimani dated 15 January 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:1506). The petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking certain reliefs, was listed for orders; on the petitioner's memo and oral prayer the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, counsel recording that the decision was conscious and that no recalling or review petition would be pursued. No issue on merits was framed or decided; no precedent was cited or considered.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1506 WP No. 53922 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 53922 OF 2017 (GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

NARAYANAPPA S/O. VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT JOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R.KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUZARI, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 026.

THE MEMBER SECRETARY, RAJYA DARMIKA PARISHATH AND THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560 018.

THE GHATTI SHRI SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE GHATTI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1506 WP No. 53922 of 2017

THE PRADHAN ARCHAKA THE GHATTI SHRI SUBRAMANAYA SWAMY TEMPLE, GHATTI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

K. MUNIYAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT OBADENAHALLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

K.B.BRMARAMBIKA W/O. MARTHYNAJAYA N.P., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.2881, CHIKKAPETE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

K. NAGARATHNA W/O. C. SRIDACHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT DODDABALLAPURA, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

SUBRAMANYA NAYAK S/O. CHANDRA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT GATTI SUBRAMANYA, TUBUGERE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

G.M.CHANNAPPA S/O. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HANDUNAHALLI, TUBUGERE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1506 WP No. 53922 of 2017

S.R.MUNIRAJU

S/O. S.R.RANGADHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SOLENAHALLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

M.G.JAGANNATHA S/O. GURUMURTHIACHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT JOGANAHALLI, TUBUGERE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

M. MANJANNA S/O. MUNICHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.85, SUNNAGATTA, EDIHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 & 3; SRI. B.S.SACHIN., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY.M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. B.S.SHRIKANTHA., ADVOCATE FOR R9, 10 & 12; R4, 6 & 8-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.R.Kumar., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in

person.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1506 WP No. 53922 of 2017

Counsel for the petitioner submits that a memo has been filed stating that the Writ Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and the Writ Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.

When queried, counsel for the petitioner submits that a conscious decision is taken by the him and the petitioner and if an order is passed, they will not seek for recalling the order or file review petition.

The oral submission made by counsel for the petitioner and the memo is placed on record.

The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

MRP List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶30 Article 227¶30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No. 53922 of 2017 (GM-R/C) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certain reliefs.¶30
Prior proceeding
On the day of listing for orders, counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo praying that the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn.¶37
Prior proceeding
When queried by the Court, counsel stated that the withdrawal was a conscious decision and that the petitioner would neither seek recalling of the order nor file a review petition; the oral submission and memo were placed on record.¶38

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
NARAYANAPPA S/O. VENKATARAYAPPA¶7
R. Kumar
respondent
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUZARI¶12
Mahantesh Shettar
respondent
THE MEMBER SECRETARY, RAJYA DARMIKA PARISHATH AND THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT¶13
B.S. Sachin
respondent
THE GHATTI SHRI SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE GHATTI, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER¶14
Mahantesh Shettar
respondent
THE PRADHAN ARCHAKA THE GHATTI SHRI SUBRAMANAYA SWAMY TEMPLE¶17
respondent
K. MUNIYAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA¶18
Krishnamurthy M.R.
respondent
K.B.BRMARAMBIKA W/O. MARTHYNAJAYA N.P.¶19
respondent
K. NAGARATHNA W/O. C. SRIDACHAR¶20
respondent
SUBRAMANYA NAYAK S/O. CHANDRA NAYAK¶21
respondent
G.M.CHANNAPPA S/O. MUNISHAMAPPA¶22
B.S. Shrikantha
respondent
S.R.MUNIRAJU S/O. S.R.RANGADHAMAIAH¶25
B.S. Shrikantha
respondent
M.G.JAGANNATHA S/O. GURUMURTHIACHAR¶26
respondent
M. MANJANNA S/O. MUNICHANNAPPA¶27
B.S. Shrikantha

Coram

AI extract

JYOTI MULIMANIauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 15 Jan 2025 · January
Registered: 27 Nov 2017
Case no.: WP/53922/2017
CNR: KAHC010135802017
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Petition (GM-R/C)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Jyoti Mulimani

Smt M S Chandra Thara Vs Smt. D.G. Shobhavathi
13 Jan 2025
M/S Gangothri Consumer Vs the Deputy Commissioner
13 Jan 2025
Smt Shyamala Vs Smt M N Nagaveni
13 Jan 2025
M/S Ganesha and Co. Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
15 Jan 2025
Karnataka Timber Importers Association Vs Union of India
15 Jan 2025
Sri D Shubakar Nayak Vs Sri S Venkateshwararaju
15 Jan 2025

Cite this judgement

Narayanappa v. the State of Karnataka, WP/53922/2017 (KA), decided on 15 January 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 227

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Writ Petition No. 53922 of 2017 (GM-R/C) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certain reliefs.
On the day of listing for orders, counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo praying that the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn.

View full history

Bench / Coram

JYOTI MULIMANI

Parties & counsel