Disposed¶40

Mr. K. Raghu Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2026WP/20969/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, WP No. 20969 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided 28-01-2026 by B M Shyam Prasad J. Senior citizen K Raghu Hegde v. State of Karnataka (Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division) and others including Adarsh Hegde and Shravya U Hegde. Direction for expeditious disposal of application MSC CR 41/2025 / MSC.CR No.41/2025 under Section 8 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; time-bound disposal within three months on filing of certified copy; petition disposed of, not dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order with the first respondent; the first respondent is called upon to decide the petitioner's appeal/application in MSC.CR No.41/2025, if not already decided, within three months from receipt of the certified copy.

Mr. K. Raghu Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, the competent authority under the Act) should be directed to expeditiously list and dispose of the petitioner's application in Case No. MSC CR 41/2025 in accordance with law within a time-frame fixed by the High Court.

¶30

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order with the first respondent, on the Additional Government Advocate's submission that the petition may be disposed of directing expeditious disposal of the petitioner's application if not already disposed of.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent was called upon to decide the petitioner's appeal, if not already decided, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — senior citizen petitioner sought mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directing the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division (competent authority under the Act) to expeditiously list and dispose of his application in Case No. MSC CR 41/2025 — none appeared for the petitioner; Additional Government Advocate accepted notice for respondent No.1 and submitted the petition may be disposed of directing expeditious disposal if not already disposed of — petition disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order with the first respondent, who is called upon to decide the petitioner's appeal, if not decided, within three months from receipt of the certified copy.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4520 WP No. 20969 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 20969 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. K. RAGHU HEGDE S/O SANNAYYA HEGDE, AGED 62 YEARS, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT ASHIRAVAD, KODGI POST AND VILLAGE, KULLANJE, VIA SHANKARANARAYANA KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 227.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI MADAN K S.,ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA K G ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:4520 WP No. 20969 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MR. ADARSH HEGDE S/O K RAGHU HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT 805, TOWER 2, HARA VIJAYA HEIGHTS BWSSB PIPELINE EROAD, THALAGHATTAPURA BENGALURU - 560062.

¶21

MS. SHRAVYA U HEGDE W/O RESPONDENT NO.3., RESIDING AT 805, TOWER 2, HARA VIJAYA HEIGHTS BWSSB PIPELINE EROAD, THALAGHATTAPURA BENGALURU - 560062.

¶22

ALSO HAVING ADDRESS AT NO.3/1, OLD NO. 437, 6^TH CROSS, 7^TH BLOCK, NEAR HOLY SAINT SCHOOL, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560070.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R1)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTING RESPONDENT

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:4520 WP No. 20969 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

NO.1, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, TO

¶30

EXPEDITIOUSLY LIST AND DISPOSE OF CASE NO. MSC CR 41/2025, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WITHIN A TIME-FRAME FIXED BY THIS COURT.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner, a senior citizen, has availed remedy under Section 8 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, 'the Act' ], and the petitioner seeks directions to the first respondent [ the competent authority under the Act ] to expeditiously dispose of his application in MSC.CR No.41/2025.

¶35

None appears for the petitioner, but Smt Saritha Kulkarni, a learned Additional Government

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:4520 WP No. 20969 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Advocate, who accepts notice for the first respondent, submits that this Court may dispose of this petition directing the first respondent to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner's application [if it is not already disposed of] with liberty to the petitioner to place a certified copy of this Court's order in the present proceedings with the first respondent.

¶40

In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order with the first respondent who is called upon to decide the petitioner's appeal, if not decided, within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶41

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶42

AN/-

Mr. K. Raghu Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. K. Raghu Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Abhisheka Properties Vs the Principal Secretary

Charanpreet Kaur Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Prakash Subramanian, Vs Union of India

Sri Apsar Pasha @ Kallu Vs State by

Smt Rekha Vs Union Bank of India

C R Ranganath Arun Vs M/S Aakruti Nirmiti Ltd.