Mr Shanawaz Siddiqui Vs the Deputy Commisioner

MR.SHANAWAZ SIDDIQUI SON OF K.ABDUL KHUDDUS SIDDIQUI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2279/E 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND PHASE DEVANURU EXTENSION RAJIVNAGARA MYSURU-570007

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.SHANKAR H S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 001

¶16

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NEW SYYAJIRAO ROAD MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 014

¶17

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19025 WP No. 26061 of 2025

HC-KAR

CAUVERY BHAVAN

BENGALURU - 560 009

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MYSURU CITY, MYSURU - 570 001

¶23

JWS SNOOKER ASSOCIATION (R) LOCATED AT DEVANAVARU LAYOUT DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD MYSURU - 570001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT (UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT)

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R.1, R.2 AND R.4; NOTICE TO R.3 AND R.5 IS DEFERRED FOR TIME BEING V/O DATED 17.03.2026)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING R1 TO CONSIDER THE TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31.07.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:19025 WP No. 26061 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner i s aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 31.07.2025 as per Annexure-A.

¶33

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶34

The petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by the grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) by respondent No.1 – the Deputy Commissioner, in favour of the JSW Snooker Association (R), which is stated to be operating a recreational facility adjacent to a 66/11 KV high voltage electrical substation managed by respondent No.3, has presented the instant writ petition. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that the establishment of such a recreational facility in close proximity to a high voltage electrical installation poses potential risks and, therefore, respondent No.1 ought not to have granted the NOC. It is further contended that the petitioner had submitted a

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:19025 WP No. 26061 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

detailed representation objecting to the grant of such NOC; however, the said representation has not been considered by respondent No.1.

¶39

This Court, having carefully examined the averments made in the writ petition, is of the considered view that the petitioner has not demonstrated any personal or legal injury so as to maintain the present writ petition. A close reading of the pleadings as well as the reliefs sought, which are in the nature of a writ of mandamus, would indicate that the petitioner is essentially seeking action against the said Association and questioning the propriety of the NOC granted, without establishing any infringement of a legally enforceable right. The grievance projected is, at best, in the nature of a general objection concerning the location of the recreational facility.

¶40

It is trite that a writ of mandamus can be invoked only when a legal right of the petitioner is established and

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19025 WP No. 26061 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

a corresponding duty is cast upon the respondents. In the case on hand, the petitioner, being a private individual, has failed to demonstrate any such enforceable right. The issue as to whether an NOC ought to be granted for operating a recreational facility adjacent to a high voltage electrical substation squarely falls within the domain of the competent executive authority, namely respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner. Likewise, if there are any technical or safety concerns, it is always open to respondent No.3 – the authority managing the electrical substation to raise appropriate objections in accordance with law.

¶44

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the present writ petition seeking directions to withhold or cancel the NOC granted in favour of the Association. Interference in such matters, which lie within the administrative discretion of the competent authority, is not warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45