Dismissed¶58

Arun Kumar K S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026WP/18292/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition challenging BBMP/Urban Development Department cancellation of shop allotment; Shop No.51 Jayanagar Shopping Complex; expired lease of Shop No.33C defeats shop-exchange claim; suppression of prior litigation (WP No.8595/2008, order dated 27.07.2009; two further rounds) held to be abuse of process of court; certiorari refused under Articles 226 and 227; equitable discretion denied to litigant suppressing material facts; liberty to authority to pursue recovery of unpaid rentals and action on dishonoured cheques; no imposition of cost.

What did the court decide?

Since the lease/licence of Shop No.33C expired in the year 2020, the petitioner's claim for an exchange with the larger Shop No.51 would not arise; no facts are made out warranting equitable indulgence of exchange of a shop in his favour. ¶53

Arun Kumar K S Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the order dated 22.09.2021 in No.UDD/95/BBL/2021(E) cancelling the allotment/resolution of Shop No.51 at Western Block, Ground Floor, Jayanagar Shopping Complex, Bengaluru (Annexure-G). +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty reserved to the respondent to initiate such action as is permissible under law; although cost could have been imposed, the Court refrains from doing so.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

¶53

Key takeaways

Suppression of the earlier litigation is material and goes to the root of the matter, establishing abuse of the process of the Court; the Court therefore declines to exercise any equitable indulgence in favour of the petitioner.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Suraj Govindaraj J, oral order dated 05.02.2026) dismisses WP No. 18292 of 2021 (LB-BMP) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Arun Kumar K.S. seeking certiorari against the Under Secretary, UDD (BBMP-2)'s order dated 22.09.2021 in No.UDD/95/BBL/2021(E) (Annexure-G) cancelling the allotment/resolution of Shop No.51, Western Block, Ground Floor, Jayanagar Shopping Complex, Bengaluru. Holding (paras 6-7): the petitioner's lease/licence of Shop No.33C having expired in 2020, an exchange for the larger Shop No.51 does not arise; and his non-disclosure in the writ petition of earlier rounds of litigation - including the order dated 27.07.2009 in WP No.8595/2008 (auction participation, unpaid month-on-month rentals, dishonoured cheques) and two further undisclosed rounds - is material, goes to the root of the matter, and constitutes abuse of the process of the Court, disentitling him to any equitable indulgence. Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to the respondent to take such action as is permissible under law; costs withheld although the Court could have imposed them.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6709 WP No. 18292 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18292 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ARUN KUMAR K.S. S/O K.T. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.921, 22^ND MAIN, 38^TH CROSS, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE UNDER SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP-2) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:6709 WP No. 18292 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER SOUTH MARKETS, BBMP, JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W

¶23

SMT. CHANDINI SINGH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2021 IN NO.UDD/95/BBL/2021(E) PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT BY CANCELLING THE ALLOTMENT/RESOLUTION OF THE SHOP BEARING NO.51 AT WESTERN BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari by quashing the order dated 22/09/2021 in No.UDD/95/BBL/2021(E) passed by the 2^nd respondent by cancelling the allotment/resolution of the shop bearing No.51 at Western Block, Ground floor, Jayanagar Shopping complex, Bengaluru vide Annexure G.

¶30

b) Grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be grant in the facts and

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:6709 WP No. 18292 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and Equity.”

¶35

The petitioner, claims to be in possession of Shop No.33C measuring 12x10 feet in the Jayanagara shopping complex, who is stated to be in possession of the said shop for a long period of time. The petitioner had submitted a representation seeking for exchange of the said shop to Shop No.51 since it had fallen vacant and contending that the respondents had agreed to hand over the said shop No.51, the petitioner is before this court contending that the said shop had not been handed over and in that background, the subsequent cancellation of the earlier allotment/resolution allotting shop No.51 instead of Shop No.33C has been challenged.

¶36

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner initially was that Shop No.33C and Shop No.51 being the same size, Shop No. 51 would be better suited for the petitioner to carry on his

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:6709 WP No. 18292 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

business and it is in that background that a request had been made. Notice having been issued the respondents have appeared.

¶41

Today, learned counsel for respondents-3 and 4 by relying on an order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court way back on 27.07.2009 in WP No.8595/2008 submits that the petitioner had then sought for continuance in open space measuring 10x12 feet, which is what is now being numbered as Shop No.33C and for renewal of the licence for a further period of 3 years by setting aside the resolution of the Standing Committee calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. By relying on the same, he submitted that the petitioner was permitted to participate in a public auction, which the petitioner has not participated in, inspite of an auction being held and further that the due rentals, month on month have not been paid. Even the two cheques, which have been issued in respect thereto

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:6709 WP No. 18292 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

have been dishonored for want of funds as regards which the respondents are proposing to take action.

¶46

He further submitted that there are two other rounds

¶47

of litigation which has happened between the petitioner and the respondent, which has not been brought to the notice of this Court when the petitioner has filed the above petition.

¶48

A perusal of the writ petition only indicates that the petitioner has sought for change of allotment from Shop No.33C to Shop No.51. The earlier round of litigations have not been mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition, which is a clear and categorical abuse of the process of this Court by way of suppression of material facts. It being material on several accounts, more so, on the account of the said lease of the petitioner having expired, there is no lease in currency in respect of Shop No.33C as on date, the lease having expired in the year 2020. The petitioner has also chosen not to mention anything as

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:6709 WP No. 18292 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

regards the payment of the due rentals and the defaults committed by the petitioner in respect of the payment. Lastly, it was sought to be contended that Shop No.33C and Shop No.51 were of the same size and as such, the exchange would not be prejudicial to the interest of the BBMP.

¶53

In the present matter, when the lease/license of Shop No.33C has expired in the year 2020, the question of the petitioner seeking for an exchange with Shop No.51, which is of a higher size, would not arise. The suppression of the earlier litigation going to the root of the matter and being material to the facts and circumstances would clearly establish that there is an abuse of the process of Court resorted to by the petitioner requiring that this Court does not exercise any equitable indulgence to the petitioner. Be that as it may. No facts are made out for exercising equitable indulgence of exchange of a shop in favour of the petitioner.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:6709 WP No. 18292 of 2021

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57