Shri. Sharanabasappa S Kalashetty Vs State of Karnataka

SHRI. SHARANABASAPPA S KALASHETTY SON OF SHRI. SANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. L4 301, GODREJ ETERNITY, HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD, THALGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU - 560109.

¶10

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SHRI. NARESH RANED NAGRAJ SON OF SHRI. NAGRAJ R.C., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. K3-101, GODREJ ETERNITY, HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD, THALGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU - 560109.

¶12

SHRI. VARDHI REDDY VENKATA KALYAN REDDY HUSBAND OF SMT. GAJULAPALLI LEELA MANASA,

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:16705-DB WA No. 518 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. L4 302, GODREJ ETERNITY, HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD, THALGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU - 560109.

¶17

SMT. GEETHA PRAKASH WIFE OF SHRI. K. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. L4 003, GODREJ ETERNITY, HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD, THALGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU 560109.

¶18

SHRI. RAJAGOPALAN NATARAJAN SON OF SHRI. S.K. RAJAGOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. L4 104, GODREJ ETERNITY, HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD, THALGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU 560109.

¶19

SHRI. R.N. RAGHAVAN SON OF SHRI. A.R. RAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. K3 004, GODREJ ETERNITY, HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD,

¶20

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16705-DB WA No. 518 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THALGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU - 560109.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. BALAGOPAL MENON.,ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND MUNICIPALITIES, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶27

KARNATAKA TANK CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINOR IRRIGATIONS DEPARTMENT, BEEJA BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 024 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO.

¶28

BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY NO. 05, LOOP LANE, RACECOURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560009. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16705-DB WA No. 518 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

GODREJ TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT LTD GODREJ ONE, 5^TH FLOOR, PIROJSHANAGAR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI (EAST), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400079.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1;

¶34

SRI. RAGHUNATH V., ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶35

SRI. YOGESH D NIAK., ADVOCATE FOR R3;

¶36

SRI. BADRI VISHAL., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶37

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

¶38

HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO [A] ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL; [B] SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No. 2541/2026 (WP-LB)C.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:16705-DB WA No. 518 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

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

¶46

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the writ Court in W.P. No.2541/2026 whereby the writ petition has been directed to be treated as Public Interest Litigation in terms of the public interest norms and rules of the High Court.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants'/petitioners' interest is involved in the subject matter of the writ petition inasmuch as the impugned construction is being put up in front of their apartments in violation of the buffer zone norms under the relevant provisions and rules.

¶48

Learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate do not dispute the assertion that the subject matter of the writ petition is not of public interest but of personal interest.

¶49

As the learned counsel for the respondents also do not support the impugned order, and the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents are consensus ad idem to

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16705-DB WA No. 518 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

set aside the order and remand the matter to the learned single

¶53

Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits.

¶54

Therefore, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 in W.P. No.2541/2026 and the matter is remanded to the writ Court for decision on merits as the subject matter of the writ petition does not appear to be of a Public Interest Litigation.

¶55

Respondent No.4 is restrained from putting up any construction or carry out further construction of Organic Waste Converter till the final decision by the writ Court.

¶56

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶57

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶58

AN/-

Shri. Sharanabasappa S Kalashetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sharanabasappa S Kalashetty v. 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

Gopinatha B Vs the Manager

Sri. Veeresh Vs the Assistant Commissioner and Land Tribunal

T S Lalitha Vs C K Ravi Kumar

Smt. Ashwathamma Vs Sri. Manjunath

M Narayanaswamy Vs Nandakumar N S

Smt Rathnamma Vs Smt Mallamma