Mr. Ramesh S N Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr. Ramesh S N Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed-in-part: liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed response to the impugned notices within three weeks from the date of the order without waiting for a certified copy; second respondent directed to consider the response, pass just orders, and desist from taking precipitous/coercive action until then.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 05.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2 (Health Officer, Kengeri Division) directing relocation of the petitioner's industry from a residential locality, under threat of disruption of electricity supply, is liable to be quashed. +2 more

Court's answer

The petition is allowed-in-part.

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance would be addressed by granting liberty to file a detailed response to the impugned notices, with the second respondent to consider the same before deciding on any coercive measure and to desist from taking precipitous action until then.

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file a detailed response within three [3] weeks from the date of the order without waiting for a certified copy, and the second respondent was directed to consider the response, pass just orders, and desist from taking precipitous action until then.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — Notice dated 05.12.2025 issued by the Medical Health Officer, Kengeri Division (Bangalore West City Corporation / Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike) calling upon the proprietor of a micro engineering industry to show cause against relocation from a residential locality, with threat of disruption of electricity supply — Petitioner contending the area is a mixed location where industrial/commercial activities could be permitted — Held: petition allowed-in-part; liberty reserved to file a detailed response within three weeks without waiting for a certified copy; second respondent directed to consider the response, pass just orders, and desist from precipitous or coercive action until then.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32983 WP No. 19497 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 19497 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

MR. RAMESH S N S/O MR.NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.NANJUNDESHWARA INDUSTRIES, HAVING SHED NO.10, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, RAMESHWARA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 091.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B KESHAVA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

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

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

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32983 WP No. 19497 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE MEDICAL 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 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, IN 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, a proprietor of a Micro Engineering Industry, is aggrieved by the notice issued by the second respondent which is produced as Annexure-A. The second respondent has issued this notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32983 WP No. 19497 of 2026

HC-KAR

against a direction to relocate the industry 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 second respondent has fallen in error in assuming that the petitioner's industry 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, 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

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32983 WP No. 19497 of 2026

HC-KAR

given liberty to file a detailed response to the impugned notices calling upon the second 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 second respondent, directing the second respondent to consider the same and pass just orders and to desist from taking precipitous action until then.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-