Allowed¶44

Mr. Somashekar H B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025WP/5971/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borewell NOC cancellation without show-cause notice; unilateral withdrawal of benefit; principles of natural justice; Madanayakanahalli Municipality; Municipal Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk; Karnataka Ground Water (Regulation for Protection of Sources of Drinking Water) Act, 1999; Section 14 appeal to Deputy Commissioner; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; interim non-interference with borewell use; WP No. 5971 of 2025 (LB-RES); R. Nataraj J; decided 29.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned cancellation notice was directed to be treated as a show-cause notice; petitioner to file objections; respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders within four weeks of the petitioner's reply; until then, respondent No.2 not to interfere with the petitioner using the borewell. ¶44

Mr. Somashekar H B Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the NOC dated 28.12.2023 by the impugned notice dated 10.01.2024, effected without prior show-cause notice, violated the principles of natural justice and was liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

Before withdrawing a benefit conferred on the petitioner, respondent No.2 ought to have issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why the NOC issued earlier should not be recalled or withdrawn; the impugned notice showed a unilateral withdrawal of the NOC.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Although an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 of the Act, 1999 was available, because the principles of natural justice were not followed in issuing the impugned notice, the petition deserved to be allowed.

¶44

Key takeaways

The impugned notice cancelling the NOC was directed to be treated as a show-cause notice; the petitioner was to file his objections and respondent No.2 was to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of the petitioner submitting a reply.ratio¶48
Until respondent No.2 passed appropriate orders on the petitioner's objections, respondent No.2 was not to interfere with the petitioner using the borewell.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj J.), W.P. No. 5971 of 2025 (LB-RES), decided 29 October 2025 - A property owner who had obtained a No Objection Certificate dated 28.12.2023 from the Municipal Commissioner, Madanayakanahalli Municipality for sinking a borewell challenged its cancellation by notice No. Ma.Na.Ka/Aa.Sha/2023-24/130 dated 10.01.2024 alleging violation of condition No.4, issued without any prior show-cause notice. Held: before withdrawing a benefit conferred, the authority ought to issue a notice calling upon the beneficiary to show cause why it should not be recalled; the unilateral cancellation violated natural justice. Although an appeal lay to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 of the Karnataka Ground Water (Regulation for Protection of Sources of Drinking Water) Act, 1999, the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was entertained and allowed on account of the natural-justice infirmity. Directions: the cancellation notice to be treated as a show-cause notice; petitioner to file objections; respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders within four weeks of the reply; until then, no interference with the petitioner's use of the borewell.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5971 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. SOMASHEKAR H.B., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. BASAVARAJ M , RESIDING AT TIRUMALAPURA, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, BENGALURU -560073

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

PANCHAYATHRAJ, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001.

¶16

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MADANAYAKANAHALLI MUNICIPALITY, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU -560162.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY V. HCGP FOR R1; SRI.RAVISHANKAR.A., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER / NOTICE BEARING NO. MA.NA.KA/AA.SHA/2023-24/130 DATED 10/01/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged a notice/order bearing No.Ma.Na.Ka/Aa.Sha/2023-24/130 dated 10.01.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 cancelling the No Objection Certificate (henceforth referred to as ‘NOC’ for short) for sinking a borewell. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to restore the No Objection Certificate dated 28.12.2023 and permit him to extract and utilize the water drawn from the borewell.

¶27

(i) The petitioner contends that he being the lawful

¶28

owner of a property had sought for a No-objection Certificate from the respondent No.2 for the purpose of sinking a borewell in his property. Accordingly, a NOC dated 28.12.2023 was issued by the respondent No.2. When the petitioner had taken

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

steps for sinking a borewell, the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 10.01.2024 alleged violation of condition No.4 and unilaterally cancelled the NOC without prior notice.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner claims that he came to know of the cancellation only when he visited the office of the respondent No.2 on 10.01.2025, when a local municipal official interfered with the extraction of water from a borewell. The petitioner claims that he had caused a notice on 17.01.2025 to the respondent No.2 to withdraw the cancellation and clarify whether he had to obtain any further permission. However, the respondent No.2 did not reply to the same but had interfered with the activity undertaken by the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the cancellation of the NOC issued by the respondent No.2.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner has sunk the borewell after obtaining the NOC. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 cannot now cancel the NOC given long after the borewell is sunk. He also contends that as per the notice dated 10.01.2024, the respondent No.2

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

without issuing any notice, has straightaway cancelled the NOC without following the due process of law. He therefore contends that the impugned notice of cancellation of the NOC is liable to be set at nought.

¶38

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 after securing instructions submitted that as per the Karnataka Ground Water (Regulation for Protection of Sources of Drinking Water) Act, 1999 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1999' for short), No-objection Certificate should be compulsorily obtained from the respondent No.2 before sinking a borewell. He contends that though a NOC was issued to the petitioner, since the property is located within 500 meters from the borewell sunk by the respondent No.2, the impugned order was necessitated due to circumstances. He contends that the petitioner has been using the water extracted from his borewell for commercial activity and taking into account the public interest, the respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order.

¶39

He also submits that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 of the Act, 1999.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶43

The petitioner was granted a NOC by the respondent No.2 to sink the borewell in his property. Accordingly, the petitioner sunk the borewell and has been using it. The respondent No.2 now alleging that the subsequent NOC was granted under a misconception and thereby issued the impugned notice cancelling the NOC issued by it earlier. It is a salutary principle of law that before withdrawing a benefit conferred upon the petitioner by the respondent No.2, it ought to have issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the NOC issued earlier should not be recalled or withdrawn. However, the impugned notice shows a unilateral withdrawal of the NOC.

¶44

In that view of the matter, even though there is the remedy of an appeal available to the petitioner, since the principles of natural justice was not followed while issuing the impugned notice, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned notice

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

by which the no objection given to the petitioner was cancelled, shall be treated as a notice. The petitioner shall file his objections to the notice and the respondent No.2 may pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of the petitioner submitting a reply. Until then, the respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the petitioner using the borewell.

¶49

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶50

BKN

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Mr. Somashekar H B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Somashekar H B v. the State of Karnataka

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

Ms Jayamani Vs the Commissioner

Ramanna Since Dead by Legal Representatives Vs Smt Neelavathamma (Husband'S Name Not Known)

Smt Bharathamma N Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mangala Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sri Balaji Electronics Vs the Arsikere Town

Dr Nalini Parameshwara Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike