Puttaraju. C Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.24713 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PUTTARAJU. C., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNAIAH R/AT SIDDESHWARA PETE, MAMBALLI VILLAGE, AGARA HOBLI, YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571441

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE, 5TH FLOOR, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE,

¶15

5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶20

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE, NO. 932, 1^ST MAIN, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU - 570001.

¶21

DEPUTY DIRECTOR SERICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SILK COCOON MARKET, KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571441.

¶22

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE SILK COCOON MARKET, POST COCOON TECHNOLOGY, KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT- 571441

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2023 BEARING NUMBER RESANI; GUNACHAKO; THAAM: GHATAKA AKSHEPANE:MAHAZAR: 01.2023-24 PASSED BY THE R-5 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioner aggrieved by non-renewal of licence for silk reeling activities is before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 as per Annexure-"A" passed by respondent No. 5.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶34

The petitioner asserts that he has been

¶35

engaged in silk reeling activity for the past 30 years and

¶36

has installed silk reeling machinery and other necessary accessories at his residential premises. He further states that he holds a valid licence issued by the competent authority for carrying on the said activity and that he purchases raw materials through open auction in accordance with the prevailing procedure.

¶37

The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by a complaint lodged by the adjoining resident, Smt.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Lakshmamma, who is a retired employee of the respondent department. According to the petitioner, there exists a dispute between him and the said Lakshmamma regarding an alleged encroachment on the eastern side of his property. It is the petitioner’s case that, owing to this personal dispute and with an intention to wreak vengeance, the said Lakshmamma lodged a false complaint, which resulted in an enquiry being initiated by respondent No.3.

¶41

Pursuant to the said complaint, respondent No.3 conducted an enquiry after securing necessary reports from the concerned authorities. On completion of the enquiry, respondent No.3 is stated to have recommended that the petitioner’s licence be renewed and accordingly directed respondents No.4 and 5 to take necessary action in that regard. However, despite the recommendation made by respondent No.3, the petitioner contends that respondent No.5 declined to renew the licence solely on the ground that the adjoining property

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

owner had not given her consent for such renewal. The petitioner has therefore assailed the said order dated 29.11.2023 before this Court.

¶45

Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the findings recorded by respondent No.3 in his report while recommending necessary action to respondents No.4 and 5, which read as follows:

¶46

"x x x x

¶47

¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.08.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ²æÃªÀÄw ®PÀëªÀÄä PÉÆÃA !ÉÃ §¸ÀªÀtÚ, ªÀiÁA§½î �ಾ�ಮ ಯಳಂದುgÀÄ vÁ// ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ f!Éè gÀªÀgÀ zÀÆj£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æÃ ¥ÀÄlÖgÁdÄ ©£ï !ÉÃ �ನ�ಯ�, ��ೆ�ೕಶ�ರ ¥ÉÃmÉ, ªÀiÁA§½î UÁæªÀÄ AiÀÄ¼ÀAzÀÆgÀÄ vÁ// gÀªÀgÀ WÀlPÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¥Àj²Ã°¸À!ÁV zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ��ೕಮ� ®PÀëªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ¥Àw ªÀiÁA§½î ¸ÀPÁðj gÉÃµÉä ¦üÃ!ÉÃZÀgï, ªÀiÁA§½îAiÀÄ°è £ÀÆ®Ä ©ZÀÄÑªÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÄÝ ¥Àw ¤zsÀ£ÀgÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¦AZÀtÂ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀéAvÀ ¦AZÀtÂ ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ ¥ÀÄlÖgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 30 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄÃ £ÀÆ®Ä ©ZÁÑtÂPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C°èAzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉ«UÀÆ £ÉgÉºÉÆgÉAiÀÄªÀjAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåzÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°èPÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÁÛªÀÄÄvÁÛ £ÀÆ®Ä ©ZÀÄÑªÀ C£ÉÃPÀ WÀlPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ."

¶48

It would be also apposite for this Court to

¶49

extract the entire impugned order dated 29.11.2023 evidenced at Annexure-"A", which reads as under:

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

"�ಷಯ: - 2023-26 #ೇ$ಾ%ನ &ಾ'( ಅವ+ಯ ರಹ�ಾ- ನ�ೕಕರಣವನು� 0ಾ0ಾ1%ಕ 2ಾ3 ತ5ೆ678ರುವ ಕು-ತು.

¶54

ಉ;ೆ'ೕಖ:- 1) ��ೕಮ� ಲ@AಮB Cೋಂ ;ೇE ಬಸವಣH, Iಾಗೂ KಾಚMಾNO PQ �ಕ1ನಂಜಯ�, ��ೆ�ೕಶ�ರ MೇSೆ, TಾಂಬUV �ಾ�ಮ, ಯಳಂದೂರು 0ಾಲೂ'ಕು ರವರ ದೂರು ಅOWಗಳ -ೕ0ಾ�,

¶55

�ಷಯCೆ1 ಸಂಬಂ8�ದಂ0ೆ XಮB KೇYೆB ನೂಲು PಚುZವ ಘಟಕವ] 2ಾಸಸ^ಳದ%' ನ5ೆಸು�ದು� ಅಕ1 ಪಕ1 ಮ#ೆಯವ-�ೆ Iಾಗೂ Pೕ8ಯ%' 2ಾಸ�ರುವ $ಾವWಜXಕ-�ೆ 0ೊಂದKೆ ಉಂSಾಗು�ದು� CಾaಾW#ೆbಂದ ಶಬ�Tಾ%ನ�, 2ಾಯುTಾ%ನ�, ಪ-ಸರTಾ%ನ� ಉಂSಾಗು��ೆ, ಘಟಕದ 0ಾ�ಜ�ಗಳನು� ಮ#ೆಗಳ ಪಕ1ದ%' Iಾಗೂ ಚರಂ7�ೆ ಸು-ದು ಅ#ೈಮWಲ�0ೆ ಉಂSಾ3 ದು2ಾWಸ#ೆbಂದ ಗಬುd #ಾರುವಂ0ೆ Tಾ7ರುವ]ದ-ಂದ #ಾವ] Oೕವನ Tಾಡುವ]ದು ಕಷf2ಾ3ರುತ�ೆ, ಮಕ1ಳ ��ಾ�gಾ�ಸCೆ1 0ೊಂದKೆ ಮತು_ ಎಲ'ರು ಅ#ಾKೋಗ�8ಂದ ಬಳಲು��ೆ�2ೆ. ಆದ�-ಂದ ��ೕ �.ಪ]ಟfKಾಜು ರವರ KೇYೆB ನೂಲು PಚುZವ ಘಟಕCೆ1 ರಹ�ಾ- ನ�ೕಕರಣ Tಾಡ&ಾರದು Iಾಗೂ CಾaಾW#ೆ ನ5ೆಸಲು ಅವCಾಶ Xೕಡ&ಾರ�ೆಂದು XಮB #ೆ Kೆ - Iೆ ೂKೆ ಯವKಾದ ��ೕಮ� ಲ@AಮB Cೆ ೂೕಂ ;ೆ ೕE ಬಸವಣ, IಾಗೂH KಾಚMಾNO PQ �ಕ1ನಂಜಯ� ��ೆ�ೕಶ�ರ Mೆ ೕSೆ , TಾಂಬUV �ಾ�ಮ, ಯಳಂದೂರು 0ಾಲೂ'ಕು ರವರು ದೂರು ಅOWಗಳನು� Xೕ7ರುವ 6#ೆ �;ೆ ಯ% ಸ^ಳ ಪ-�ೕಲ#ೆ Iಾಗೂ ಮಹಜj ನ5ೆ ಸ;ಾ3ರುತ�ೆ ದೂರು �ಾರ-� kಾವ]�ೆ ೕ -ೕ�ಯ 0ೆ ೂಂದKೆ ಇಲ'8ರುವ]ದನು� ಮನವ-C Tಾ7Cೆ ೂಡ;ಾ3ದು�, ಅವರು ಇದCೆ 1 ಒnN ಸ6Tಾ7ರುವ]8ಲ.'

¶56

ಚ( ಬಂ8ಯ &ಾಜು �ಾರರು ಘಟಕ ನ5ೆಸಲು ಸ6Tಾ7 Cೊಟf%' XಮB ರಹ�ಾ-ಯನು� ನ�ೕಕ-ಸ;ಾಗುವ]ದು. ಅ%'ಯ ವKೆ��ೆ XಮB ಚರಕ ಘಟಕದ ರಹ�ಾ-ಯನು� 0ಾ0ಾ1%ಕ2ಾ3 ತ5ೆ67ಯ;ಾ3�ೆ."

¶57

[emphasis supplied]

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The report submitted by respondent No.3 clearly indicates that the petitioner has been engaged in silk reeling activity for nearly three decades. The said fact has been specifically noticed and recorded by respondent No.3 while submitting his report after conducting the enquiry. What is more significant is that even respondent No.5, while passing the impugned order declining renewal of licence, has acknowledged that the petitioner’s activity has not resulted in any nuisance to the adjoining property owners, as is evident from the extract referred to supra. Therefore, the material placed on record itself demonstrates that the petitioner has been lawfully carrying on silk reeling activity for a considerable length of time and that the said activity has not been found to be causing any disturbance or nuisance to the neighbouring residents.

¶61

It is no doubt true that certain activities such as

¶62

silk reeling, when carried on within a residential locality, may at times give rise to complaints from adjoining residents and, in that context, authorities may insist upon

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

obtaining a formal “No Objection” from the neighbouring property owners. However, the requirement of such consent cannot be applied in a rigid or mechanical manner, particularly when the objections raised by the neighbouring residents appear to stem from personal disputes or vendetta. When objections are motivated by private disputes between neighbours, the statutory authorities are expected to independently assess the factual circumstances and cannot arbitrarily decline renewal of a licence solely on the basis of such objections. More particularly, when the competent authority itself has recorded a finding that the activity carried on by the petitioner does not cause any nuisance, the mere objection of an adjoining owner cannot constitute a valid ground to deny renewal of a licence. The authority, while exercising its regulatory powers, is required to balance competing interests on the one hand ensuring that activities conducted in residential areas do not cause inconvenience to others, and on the other hand protecting

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the legitimate right of a citizen to carry on his trade or occupation. In the present case, where the petitioner has been carrying on silk reeling activity for close to thirty years, the denial of renewal on the sole ground of objection by the adjoining owner is clearly unjustified.

¶70

The impugned order declining renewal of licence has the effect of virtually depriving the petitioner of his means of livelihood. Silk reeling is a traditional activity which, in many cases, is carried on within residential premises on a small scale and constitutes the primary source of income for the entire family. The petitioner asserts that he has been engaged in this activity for

¶71

several decades and the livelihood of his family is dependent upon the said occupation. When such an activity has been permitted for years together and when the competent authority has itself recorded that the activity does not cause nuisance to neighbouring residents, the abrupt refusal to renew the licence solely on the basis of an objection raised by an adjoining property

¶72

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

owner is manifestly arbitrary. Such an action not only disregards the findings recorded during the enquiry but also seriously affects the petitioner’s right to continue his occupation. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from clear perversity and has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner by adversely impacting his ability to continue the silk reeling activity, which has sustained his family for nearly three decades. Consequently, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court.

¶75

For the foregoing reason, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶78

(ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2023 passed

¶79

by respondent No.5, produced at Annexure–“A”, is

¶80

hereby quashed and set aside.

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:13012 WP No. 24713 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

(iii) Respondent No.5 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application seeking renewal of licence and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the course of this order. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶85

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶86

ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24

Puttaraju. C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttaraju. C v. 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 Deshadpete Veerashaiva Sangha Vs the Commissioner

Sri Vittal Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Jaganna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.M. Nagarathna Vs Smt Divya M P

Sri. Manjunatha Sports and Cultural Association Vs State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka