Allowed

Sant Shri Asharamji Ashram (Registred) v. Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2026WP/14644/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A charitable trust challenged BDA's cancellation of its civic amenity site allotment on grounds of commercial use. The court held that cost-to-cost sale of ayurvedic medicine and founder's books to devotees is not commercial activity, and cancellation without prior notice violated natural justice. Cancellation quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order dated 30.11.2020 quashed; BDA free to act in accordance with law after notice and hearing if commercial activity is later found.

Sant Shri Asharamji Ashram (Registred) Vs Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14644 OF 2020 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SANT SHRI ASHARAMJI ASHRAM (REGISTERED) REGD. OFFICE AT: VANDE MATARAM MARG, UPPER RIDGE ROAD, OPP. TO RAVINDRA RANGA SHALA, NEW DELHI-110060 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY: BRANCH OFFICE AT BANGALORE, GATE NO.15/B, 26^TH CROSS, 17^TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560070

¶10

REPRESENTED BY:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE ITS SANCHALAK (CARE TAKER) SRI DEEPAK KUMAR NAYAK, S/O SUNDAR LAL NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.15/B, 26^TH CROSS, 17^TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560070

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

COMMISSIONER

¶17

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.3, SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BDA COMPLEX, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560070

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BEARING NO.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/E.M/¹.J/141/2020/21 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/E.M/¹.J/141/2020/21 dated 30.11.2020 passed by the

¶28

respondent No.1, canceling the allotment of a civic amenity site (henceforth referred to as 'CA site') on the ground that the petitioner is conducting commercial activities in the building constructed over it. The petitioner has also sought for direction to respondent No.1 to hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity to disprove the allegations against it.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The petitioner claims to be a public charitable trust and has 425 branches all over the country and abroad. On an application filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 granted a civic amenity site to the petitioner and executed a lease agreement dated 27.01.2005. The petitioner constructed a building and claimed that it is using the same for its social activities. The petitioner contends that at the instance of Karnataka Janahitha Vedhike (Registered), the respondent No.2 caused notices dated 12.09.2014 and 17.12.2014 calling upon the petitioner to disclose the medical facilities and cultural activities and other facilities provided to the general public.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner submitted his reply on 22.12.2014 giving details of activities conducted by it in the premises. Following this, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order canceling the allotment of the civic amenity site to the petitioner on the ground that when the Deputy Secretary - 1 of the respondent No.1 visited the premises on 23.10.2019, he found that there was some sale of ayurvedic medicine in the premises. It was thus alleged by the respondent No.1, that the petitioner is using the premises for commercial purposes and

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

therefore proceeded to pass the impugned order canceling the grant of the civic amenity site to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

(i) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the outset, the civic amenity site in question was granted to the petitioner for the purposes of conducting social activities. He contends that the petitioner is not a fly by night organization but has 425 branches all over the country and abroad. He contends that the petitioner constructed a building and has been using the same for social activities. He also submits that a perusal of the impugned order itself would establish that the ground floor of the building was used for conducting Bhajans, while the first floor was used for distributing prasad to the devotees.

¶37

(ii) He contends that the Deputy Secretary of respondent No.1 inspected the premises at a time where there was no Bhajans in the Ashram and the respondent No.1 has claimed that the petitioner has been using the premises only for the purpose of selling ayurvedic medicine. He contends that sale of ayurvedic medicine is not on profit basis but is for the

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

devotees of the Ashram on a cost to cost basis. Thus, he contends that the assumption of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner is not conducting social activities is without any basis.

¶41

(iii) This apart, he contends that the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order without following the principles of natural justice in as much as not even the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before taking a drastic measure such as cancellation of grant of a civic amenity site that too, when the grant was still in force. He therefore submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is liable to be quashed.

¶42

(i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondents,

¶43

who have filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioner was granted the civic amenity site for a period of 30 years with effect from 27.01.2005 with the purpose of permitting the petitioner to use it for social activities. It is contended that when the officials of the respondents inspected the property on 09.12.2014, they noticed the sale of spiritual books and that no cultural activities like bhajans, chanting and

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

meditation were conducted and no medical facilities were provided and the signatory to the lease agreement was not found. Therefore, it is contended that no cultural, spiritual activities or medical programs were undertaken in the premises.

¶47

(ii) It is also contended that the petitioner failed to show cause to the letter dated 12.09.2014 and hence, another notice was issued on 17.12.2014 calling upon the petitioner to furnish details of the cultural and other social activities undertaken. However, the petitioner purportedly submitted an untenable explanation, which made it evident that no cultural or spiritual or social activities were conducted in the premises. It is also alleged that the petitioner has been using the premises for the purpose of selling books, parking vehicles and also selling ayurvedic medicine, which is clearly a commercial activity. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner has violated terms of allotment of CA site and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for continuation of the lease.

¶48

The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated above submissions and submitted that no cultural, social or

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

spiritual activities are undertaken in the premises and no medical programs are arranged in the premises. He therefore submits that the petitioner has been using it for commercial purposes and hence, the cancellation of the grant of CA site is just and proper.

¶52

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶53

A perusal of the lease agreement executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner shows that the grant was for the purposes of "Social activity" and it was mandated that it shall not be used for any other purposes and no residential or commercial building shall be put up on the allotted CA site. The petitioner claims to be a Public Charitable Trust and it also claims that it has 425 branches all over the country and abroad. When the Deputy Secretary - 1 of respondent No.1 inspected the premises on 23.10.2019, he did see that the ground floor of the premises was used for a bhajan mandir, while the first floor was used for distributing food to the devotees, who visit the Ashram. A portion of the ground

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

floor was used for selling ayurvedic medicine to the devotees. It is also alleged that some books relating to the founder of the Ashram was sold. This at any rate cannot become a commercial activity so long as the main activity, namely spreading the philosophy of the founder of the Ashram is alive. For an activity to be termed 'commercial' there should be an apparent procurement and sale commodities or provision of service at a cost, which should have an element of profit and incidence of indirect tax implication. Sale of books of a founder of the ashram or sale of ayurvedic medicine at the ashram cannot be termed 'commercial activity'. Therefore, the respondents cannot allege that the petitioner has undertaken commercial activities in the building and cannot proceed to cancel the CA site granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is one issued without proper application of mind. This apart, the impugned order does not show that the petitioner was issued with a notice before taking a drastic measure such as cancellation of the allotment of the civic amenity site.

¶57

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28616 WP No. 14644 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶60

passed:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The petition is allowed ;

¶63

ii. The impugned order bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/E.M/¹.J/141/2020/21 dated 30.11.2020 passed by respondent No.1, cancelling the allotment of civic amenity site to the petitioner is quashed. However, in the event the respondent No.1 finds that the petitioner is undertaking any commercial activity, the respondent No.1 is at liberty to take action in accordance with law after notifying the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner.

¶64

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶65

BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sant Shri Asharamji Ashram (Registred) v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Shri Asharamji Ashram (Registred) v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Anil Prakash Thumbapuri Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri. Veeranagowda Mali Pateil @ v. S. Patil Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

K Vidyashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Sundararami Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vijayarajashekhar Vs the Commissioner