Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mr R Jnanesh Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Mr R Jnanesh Vs the CommissionerMr R Jnanesh v. the Commissioner

Partly allowed¶¶42

Mr R Jnanesh v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2026WP/16153/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; single-judge oral order by Justice B M Shyam Prasad; WP No. 16153 of 2026 (LB-BMP); decided 04-06-2026; petitioner R Jnanesh, proprietor of M/s Milltech Industries; respondents include Commissioner, Greater Bangalore Authority and Health Officers, Bangalore West City Corporation/Kengeri Division; impugned notice dated 05.12.2025 (Annexures-A and E); show-cause against relocation of micro mill from residential locality; threat of electricity supply disruption; petitioner's plea of mixed-location permitting industrial/commercial activity; certiorari sought; petition allowed-in-part at preliminary hearing; three weeks to file response; no precipitate/coercive action until consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed-in-part: liberty to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks with the third respondent, who shall consider it and pass just orders and desist from precipitous action until then.

Why is it important?

Petition allowed-in-part: liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a detailed response to the impugned notices within three [3] weeks with the third respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order. ¶¶43

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed-in-part: liberty to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks with the third respondent, who shall consider it and pass just orders and desist from precipitous action until then.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices requiring the petitioner to show cause against relocating his mill from a residential locality (with threatened disruption of electricity supply) were sustainable, given the petitioner's contention that the area is a mixed location where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Petition allowed-in-part: liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a detailed response to the impugned notices within three [3] weeks with the third respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order.

Key takeaways

The third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's response, pass just orders, and to desist from taking precipitous action until the response is so considered.ratio¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the proprietor of a micro mill (M/s Milltech Industries) against notices dated 05.12.2025 (Annexures-A and E) issued by the Health Officer, Kengeri Division, calling upon him to show cause against relocating the mill from a residential locality lest there be measures for disruption of electricity supply. The petitioner contended that the area is a mixed location where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted. At the preliminary hearing, the High Court (B M Shyam Prasad, J.), observing that the impugned action was only a notice allowing seven days and that no action had been taken since December 2025, allowed the petition in part: liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks, the third respondent was directed to consider it, pass just orders, and desist from precipitous action until then.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26460 WP No. 16153 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 16153 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

MR R JNANESH S/O MR.RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.MILLTECH INDUSTRIES, HAVING SHED NO.24,

4^TH CROSS, RAMESHWARA NAGAR, SAIBABA NAGAR, NEAR ANUPAMA COLLEGE, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 091.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B KESHAVA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION ZONE 01, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 060.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26460 WP No. 16153 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION, OFFICE OF MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER KENGERI DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE-01, BANGALORE-5600 60.

THE HEALTH OFFICER, GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION KENGERI DIVISION, BANGALORE-560060.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS/S BY QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 05.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, HEALTH OFFICER, KENGERI DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA ZONE, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND ALLOW THIS PETITION.

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26460 WP No. 16153 of 2026

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, a proprietor of a Micro Mill, is aggrieved by the notices issued by the third respondent which are produced as Annexures-A and E. The third respondent has issued these notices calling upon the petitioner to show cause against a direction to relocate the mill from a residential locality lest there be measures for disruption of electricity supply.

Sri B.Keshava Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the third respondent has fallen in error in assuming that the petitioner's mill is within a residential area when it is indisputable that

the area is a mixed location where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted.

Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for the respondents,

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26460 WP No. 16153 of 2026

HC-KAR

is heard in the light of these circumstances. The impugned action is only a notice and it allows the petitioner seven days’ time but the notice is in the month of December 2025 and no action is taken so far even according to the petitioner.

This Court is of the view that the petitioner's grievance would be addressed if the petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed response to the impugned notices calling upon the third respondent to consider the same before deciding on any coercive measure and to desist from taking precipitous action until then. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed-in-part

reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks from today without even waiting for a certified copy of this order with the third respondent, directing the third respondent

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26460 WP No. 16153 of 2026

HC-KAR

to consider the same and pass just orders and to desist from taking precipitous action

until then.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA

ct:sr

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the notices requiring the petitioner to show cause against relocating his mill from a residential locality (with threatened disruption of electricity supply) were sustainable, given the petitioner's contention that the area is a mixed location where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted.medium confidence¶¶32
2.
Whether pending the petitioner's detailed response to the impugned notices, the third respondent should be restrained from taking coercive/precipitous action.¶¶40
The court held
Petition allowed-in-part: liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a detailed response to the impugned notices within three [3] weeks with the third respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order.ratio¶¶43

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶¶25 Article 227¶¶25

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notice(s) dated 05.12.2025 (Annexures-A and E) calling upon the petitioner to show cause against relocation of his mill from the locality, with threatened measures for disruption of electricity supply; the prayer attributes the notice to Respondent No.2 while the body describes the notices as issued by the third respondent.¶¶25
Health Officer, Kengeri Division, Rajarajeshwara Nagara Zone, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Respondent No.2 per prayer; referred to in the body as the third respondent) · 05.12.2025
Prior proceeding
The impugned action was only a show-cause notice allowing seven days' time; issued in December 2025 and, even according to the petitioner, no action had been taken thereafter.¶¶39

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
MR R JNANESH S/O MR.RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.MILLTECH INDUSTRIES¶¶10
B KESHAVA MURTHY
respondent
THE COMMISSIONER GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION ZONE 01, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 060¶¶17
PAWAN KUMAR
respondent
THE HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION, OFFICE OF MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER KENGERI DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE-01, BANGALORE-5600 60.¶¶21
PAWAN KUMAR
respondent
THE HEALTH OFFICER, GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF HEALTH OFFICER, BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION KENGERI DIVISION, BANGALORE-560060.¶¶22
PAWAN KUMAR

Coram

AI extract

B M SHYAM PRASADauthor¶¶30

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 4 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 1 Jun 2026
Case no.: WP/16153/2026
CNR: KAHC010353462026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
Disposal: Partly Allowed
Case type: WRIT PETITION (LB-BMP)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from B M Shyam Prasad

Access Developers Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
3 Jun 2026
Manikam Murugeshan Vs State of Karnataka
3 Jun 2026
M/S Skanda Marketers Vs State of Karnataka
3 Jun 2026
Mr T Rangaswamy Vs the Commissioner
4 Jun 2026
Mr Venkatesh C R Vs the Commissioner
4 Jun 2026
Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka
4 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Mr R Jnanesh v. the Commissioner, WP/16153/2026 (KA), decided on 4 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 227

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Notice(s) dated 05.12.2025 (Annexures-A and E) calling upon the petitioner to show cause against relocation of his mill from the locality, with threatened measures for disruption of electricity supply; the prayer attributes the notice to Respondent No.2 while the body describes the notices as issued by the third respondent.Health Officer, Kengeri Division, Rajarajeshwara Nagara Zone, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Respondent No.2 per prayer; referred to in the body as the third respondent) · 05.12.2025
The impugned action was only a show-cause notice allowing seven days' time; issued in December 2025 and, even according to the petitioner, no action had been taken thereafter.

View full history

Bench / Coram

B M SHYAM PRASAD

Parties & counsel