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.

Mrs. Annapoorna S Rao, Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Mrs. Annapoorna S Rao, Vs State of KarnatakaMrs. Annapoorna S Rao, v. State of Karnataka

Dismissed¶¶43

Mrs. Annapoorna S Rao, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2026WP/23959/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous dismissal of writ petition opposing mobile tower installation; Indus Tower Limited memo dated 12.02.2026 deciding not to erect tower; mandamus sought against Permude Grama Panchayat to enforce endorsements dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-C) and 01.08.2025 (Annexure-C1); Survey No.137/11P4 and 137/11, Kuthethuru Village, Padupadavu, Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada; filed under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; LB-RES category; single-judge order of Justice M.I. Arun dated 24.03.2026; no precedents cited; useful mainly for procedural proposition that writ becomes infructuous when cause of action disappears due to contesting party's unilateral abandonment.

What did the court decide?

Since respondent No.5, by memo dated 12.02.2026, stated that a decision has been taken not to erect any mobile tower, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking to stop respondent No.5's mobile tower installation survives for adjudication, in view of respondent No.5's stated decision not to erect any tower.

Court's answer

Since respondent No.5, by memo dated 12.02.2026, stated that a decision has been taken not to erect any mobile tower, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.I. Arun), Writ Petition No. 23959 of 2025 (LB-RES), decided 24 March 2026 — Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by five petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2, Permude Grama Panchayat, to ensure strict compliance with its endorsements/communications dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-C) and 01.08.2025 (Annexure-C1) and to stop the alleged illegal installation of a mobile tower by respondent No.5, Indus Tower Limited, in Survey No.137/11P4 and 137/11, Kuthethuru Village, Padupadavu, within the Panchayat's limits. Counsel for respondent No.5 filed a memo dated 12.02.2026 stating that a decision had been taken not to erect any mobile tower. Holding the petition infructuous for that reason, the Court dismissed it. No precedent was cited and no substantive law was decided.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16582 WP No. 23959 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 23959 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

MRS. ANNAPOORNA S RAO, AGED 60 YEARS W/O SUDARSHAN RAO H R/A NO.1, 1^ST CROSS, VALLABHANAGAR KONANAKUNTE CROSS, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGLAORE- 560062.

SRI.ASHOKA

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AGED 45 YEARS S/O SANKAPPA DEVADIGA, NO.3-19, PADUPADAVU, KUTHETHURU, MANGALORE MADYA, D K DISTRICT- 575030.

SRI NAGESH DEVADIGA AGED 67 YEARS S/O SANKAPPA DEVADIGA R/AT 3/28, JAGADISH NILAYA PADUPADAVU, KUTHETHUR MANGALORE MADYA D K DISTRICT- 575030.

SRI. LOKESH DEVADIGA AGED 61 YEARS S/O MONAPPA DEVADIGA

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16582 WP No. 23959 of 2025

HC-KAR

3-20, PADUPADAVU KUTHETHUR, MANGALORE MADYA D K DISTRICT- 575030

SRI SUDHAKAR

AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANAA DEVADIGA, R/AT NO 3-27, 9TH BLOCK, PADUPADAVU, KUTHETHUR, MANGALORE MADYA, D K DISTRICT- 575030

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MS BUILDIG, 3RD FLOOR BENGALURU- 560001

PERMUDE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PERMUDE POST

MANGALURU TALUK- 574509

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANAGALORE- 575001

THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE BAJPE POLICE STATION

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16582 WP No. 23959 of 2025

HC-KAR

BAJPET KAIKAMBA ROAD

MANGALORE- 574142

INDUS TOWER LIMITED (COMPANY) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CIRCLE OFFICE NO 12, SUBRAMANYA ARCADE TOWER D, 7^TH FLOOR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560029 REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; YATHIN B, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND BHARATH K., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS ORDERS, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ENSURE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ITS ENDORSEMENT / COMMUNICATIONS DATED 19.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND 01.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C1 AND TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO STOP THE ILLEGAL INSTALLATION OF MOBILE TOWER BEING CARRIED OUT BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN SURVEY NO.137/11P4 AND 137/11 IN KUTHETHURU VILLAGE, PADUPADAVU WITHIN THE LIMITS OF RESPONDENT NO.2 PERMUDE GRAMA PANCHAYAT., AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16582 WP No. 23959 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

The writ petition is filed by the petitioners against the installation of mobile tower by respondent No.5.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has filed a memo dated 12.02.2026 stating that a decision has been taken not to erect any mobile tower.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed as having become

infructuous.

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ petition seeking to stop respondent No.5's mobile tower installation survives for adjudication, in view of respondent No.5's stated decision not to erect any tower.medium confidence¶¶42
The court held
Since respondent No.5, by memo dated 12.02.2026, stated that a decision has been taken not to erect any mobile tower, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.ratio¶¶43

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶¶34 Article 227¶¶34

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 Permude Grama Panchayat had issued endorsements/communications dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-C) and 01.08.2025 (Annexure-C1); petitioners sought a mandamus directing strict compliance with them.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioners alleged that respondent No.5 was illegally installing a mobile tower in Survey No.137/11P4 and 137/11, Kuthethuru Village, Padupadavu, within the limits of respondent No.2, and prayed for immediate action to stop it.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed against the installation of the mobile tower by respondent No.5.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Counsel for respondent No.5 filed a memo dated 12.02.2026 stating that a decision had been taken not to erect any mobile tower.¶¶42

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Mrs. Annapoorna S Rao¶¶8
Ganapathi Bhat
petitioner
Sri. Ashoka¶¶9
Ganapathi Bhat
petitioner
Sri Nagesh Devadiga¶¶12
Ganapathi Bhat
petitioner
Sri. Lokesh Devadiga¶¶13
Ganapathi Bhat
petitioner
Sri Sudhakar¶¶17
Ganapathi Bhat
respondent
State of Karnataka, represented by the Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development¶¶22
Bopanna Belliappa
respondent
Permude Grama Panchayat, represented by its Panchayat Development Officer¶¶23
Yathin B
respondent
Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District¶¶25
Bopanna Belliappa
respondent
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bajpe Police Station¶¶26
Bopanna Belliappa
respondent
Indus Tower Limited, represented by its Managing Director¶¶31
Bharath K.

Coram

AI extract

Justice M.I. Arunauthor¶¶39

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 24 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 6 Aug 2025
Case no.: WP/23959/2025
CNR: KAHC010522512025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: M.i.arun
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Petition (LB-RES)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from M.i.arun

Sri Dinesh B v Vs the State Government of Karnataka
23 Mar 2026
Mr. Iyaz Adam, Vs Greater Bangalore Authority
23 Mar 2026
Sri. Umesh. H. B. Vs the State of Karnataka
23 Mar 2026
Sri.P.Jagadish Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
24 Mar 2026
Smt B M Veena Vs Secretary
24 Mar 2026
Miss. Aarti C Pawadi Vs the Registrar of Births and Deaths
24 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

Mrs. Annapoorna S Rao, v. State of Karnataka, WP/23959/2025 (KA), decided on 24 March 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 history4

Respondent No.2 Permude Grama Panchayat had issued endorsements/communications dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-C) and 01.08.2025 (Annexure-C1); petitioners sought a mandamus directing strict compliance with them.
Petitioners alleged that respondent No.5 was illegally installing a mobile tower in Survey No.137/11P4 and 137/11, Kuthethuru Village, Padupadavu, within the limits of respondent No.2, and prayed for immediate action to stop it.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Justice M.I. Arun

Parties & counsel