Dismissed¶52

Shri Shrikantha Subraya Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2026WP/12489/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Gram Panchayat office relocation; Village Administrator Office; Kodani; Honnavar; Uttara Kannada; Karnataka; public interest litigation; Article 226; Wednesbury unreasonableness; precautionary shifting; Department of Mines and Geology report; hill collapse risk; judicial non-interference in administrative siting decisions; representations to authorities. Relevant to: scope of judicial review over location of local government offices; dismissal of PIL where the challenged decision is neither unreasonable nor actuated by mala fides.

What did the court decide?

No interference of this Court is warranted in matters relating to the location of the offices of the Gram Panchayat and the administrative offices. ¶45

Shri Shrikantha Subraya Naik Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31640-DB WP No. 12489 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 12489 OF 2026 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI SHRIKANTHA SUBRAYA NAIK S/O SHRI SUBRAYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT BERANKI HONNAVARA, BERANKI UTTARA KANNADA KARNATAKA - 581 423

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY MS. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶16

PRESIDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT KODANI, HONAVAR TALUK UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶17

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KODANI GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:31640-DB WP No. 12489 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HONAVAR TALUK UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶22

TAHSILDAR HONNAVAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶23

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT HONNAVAR - 581 334

¶24

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT HONNAVAR - 581 334

¶25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARWAR

¶26

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 301

¶27

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY UTTARA KANNADA KARWAR - 581 301

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1, 4, 7 & 8)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO IMMEDIATELY RESTORE THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE TO THE ORIGINAL SITE LOCATED AT KODANI, HONNAVAR, UTTARA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 581 334 WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM TODAY AS PER THE GEOLOGICAL REPORT DATED 14/01/2026 & ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:31640-DB WP No. 12489 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶38

The petitioner has filed the present petition as a public interest litigation, inter alia , praying that directions be issued to immediately restore the Gram Panchayat and Village Administrator Office to the original site located at Kodani, Honnavar, Uttara Kannada, Karnataka.

¶39

The petitioner states that the Gram Panchayat and the Village Administrator office was originally located at Survey No.51A1A2, Kodani, Honnavar, Uttara Kannada, which was 500 mtrs. away from the city center and it was convenient for the villagers to access the same. However, it was subsequently found that there may be some risk to the office since it was located on the foot of a hill, which was considered as unsafe.

¶40

On 05.06.2025, the Department of Mines and Geology, Uttara Kannada District had submitted a report flagging the risk of collapse of the hill, which is behind the said office and had recommended that the office be shifted as a precautionary

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31640-DB WP No. 12489 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

measure, albeit on a temporary basis. The petitioner states that although there were sites located nearby, the office was ordered to be shifted to a site which is 6 kms. away from the original site. It was also submitted that there is a Gram Panchayat Hall which is barely at a kilometre away from the original site. But the office was not shifted to that site, instead was moved to a site, which according to the petitioner is not easily accessible.

¶44

The petitioner further submits that the perceived risk no longer exists as a fresh report dated 19.06.2026 has been submitted to the effect that the site is now safe.

¶45

We are not persuaded to accept that any interference of this court is warranted in the matters relating to location of the offices of Gram Panchayat and the administrative offices. Admittedly, the site is barely 6 kms. away from the original site. The decision as to where the administrative offices are to be located, is a decision which would warrant no interference, unless it is established that the decision is unreasonable or capricious. The averments made in the petition indicate that the office was shifted as a precautionary measure. Thus, we are unable to accept that the said decision can be construed as unreasonable on the annul of the Wednesbury

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:31640-DB WP No. 12489 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

test. And, there is no allegation of any mala fides in shifting the office.

¶50