Dismissed¶41

Mysuru City Corporation v. Smt C Devarathna

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026WA/1972/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 1125 days delay; intra-Court writ appeal; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961; Mysuru City Corporation; Vanivilas Water Supply Board; Sewerage Board Mysore City Corporation; Secretary City Municipal Corporation Authority; Writ Petition No.15637/2021; order dated 10.10.2022; relinquishment deed; Master Plan-II Mysore Nanjangud Planning Area; New Kanthraj Urs Road; certified copies delay; Government approval to grant licence; bona fide explanation; question of law kept open; pending IAs disposed; I.A.No.1/2026; D K Singh; T.M. Nadaf; Karnataka High Court 2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed for failure to condone the 1125-day delay, the question of law was expressly kept open, and pending IAs were disposed of. ¶41

Mysuru City Corporation Vs Smt C Devarathna — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13848-DB WA No. 1972 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1972 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MYSURU CITY CORPORATION NEW SAYYAJI ROAD, MYSURU REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER MYSURU-570001

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VANIVILAS WATER SUPPLY BOARD MYSORE

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SEWERAGE BOARD MYSORE CITY CORPORATION

¶13

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MYSORE

¶15

(BY SRI HEMANTH Y, ADVOCATE FOR

¶16

MS. GEETHA DEVI M P, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. C DEVARATHNA W/O SRI S SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.511, SHIVARATHNA PANCHAMANTRA ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE-570013

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:13848-DB WA No. 1972 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE SECRETARY CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AUTHORITY M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI M RAMAMOHAN AND SRI M R DILIP, ADVOCATES FOR R-1; SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-2)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.15637/2021 PASSED BY THIS COURT AND MODIFY THE SAME IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶31

The present intra Court appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 1125 days. I.A.No.1/2026 has been filed seeking to condone the said delay. The reasons for filing the appeal with such an enormous delay have been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The relevant paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit are extracted hereunder:-

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:13848-DB WA No. 1972 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

"3. The Respondent had sought permission and approval of license of constructing of the building in her site situated at new Kanthraj Urs Road. This road is notified under the Master Plan-II Mysore Nanjangud Planning Area. Hence the Town Planning officer informed the Respondent no.1 that some portion of the land has to be left vacant and that she had to execute relinquishment deed. But the Respondent No.1 did not comply with this requirement and approached this Hon'ble Court with the above petition. The Learned single judge, in its judgment dated 10-10-2021 has allowed the above writ petitions. Hence this appeal.

¶36

4. The judgment was pronounced on 10-10-2022 and our counsel for appellant had applied for certified copies on 11-10-2022 but the same was rejected for want of additional copying charges. Then our counsel has reapplied 07-12-2022. Additional Charges were called for and paid on 16-12-2022. The certified copies was granted on 19-12-2022. The certified copies were sent to or office in the last week of December.

¶37

5. After receipt of the certified copies we had sought Government's approval to grant license without insisting of relinquishment deed and the Government recently instructed the Corporation to prefer an appeal. The delay is thus for bona fide reasons. The Corporation has to follow the Regulations and guidelines."

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13848-DB WA No. 1972 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Having gone through the aforesaid paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered by the appellants is neither bona fide nor convincing. Therefore, we do not find any ground to condone the inordinate delay of 1125 days in filing the writ appeal.

¶41

As we dismiss the application-I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay, resultantly, the writ appeal also stands dismissed. However, the question of law is kept open.

¶42

In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(T.M. NADAF) JUDGE

¶45

BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Mysuru City Corporation v. Smt C Devarathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mysuru City Corporation v. Smt C Devarathna

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

The General Manager Vs the President

Mrs Vinodamma Since Dead Represented by Her L.R Sri. Suresh.S Vs the Managing Director

Sri K Harikrishna Vs Sri D v Manjunatha

K Balaji Vs the Assistant General Manager State Bank of India

State of Karnataka Vs R M Mariswamy

Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Limited Vs the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)