Disposed

Sri Krishna Kumar Rai v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026WP/36764/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple secretary sought mandamus to release balance Rs.10 lakh of a sanctioned renovation grant despite certification that the full amount was utilised. The State agreed the representation would be considered; the Court directed disposal of the representation within six weeks without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 directed to consider and dispose of petitioner's representation(s) in accordance with law within six weeks; no opinion on merits; contentions left open.

Sri Krishna Kumar Rai Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:21364 WP No. 36764 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 36764 OF 2025 (GM-R/C)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI KRISHNA KUMAR RAI S/O. AMMANA RAI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT, SERVE VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK, D.K-574210.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJARAMA .S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT TRUST CHAMRAJPETE, BENGALURU-560018.

¶14

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

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING STATEBANK ROAD

¶16

MANGALORE, D.K-575008.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT TRUST CHAMRAJPETE

¶18

BENGALURU-560018.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR PUTTUR TALUK

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21364 WP No. 36764 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

DAKSHINA KANNADA-574201.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R4 TO PAY THE REMAINING AGREED GRANT AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/12/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Petitioner is seeking a mandamus against respondent No. 4 to disburse the remaining agreed grant amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- by considering petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2025 as per Annexure-"A".

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶31

The petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary

¶32

of Eliya Shree Vishnumurthy Temple has approached this

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21364 WP No. 36764 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Court asserting that respondent No.1, under a sanction

¶36

order dated 12.09.2022, has granted a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the purpose of renovation and repair of the said temple. It is the specific case of the petitioner that while according such sanction, certain conditions were stipulated by the competent authority. The petitioner would further contend that the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer has issued a communication certifying that the entire sanctioned amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has been duly utilised towards the renovation and repair works of the temple. Notwithstanding the same, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite submission of representation(s) and repeated reminders, respondent No.4 has failed to release the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- allegedly due towards the said renovation works, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate, on

¶38

instructions, submits that the representation submitted by

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21364 WP No. 36764 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the petitioner would be duly considered by the competent authority and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law, within a reasonable time frame.

¶42

Recording the aforesaid submission and without

¶43

expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, this

¶44

Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The writ petition stands allowed in part.

¶47

(ii) Respondent No.4 is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation(s), in accordance with law, by taking into consideration the material placed on record, if not already considered.

¶48

(iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21364 WP No. 36764 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

¶52

petitioner’s claim and all contentions are left open.

¶53

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Sri Krishna Kumar Rai v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishna Kumar Rai v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vijay Kumar @ Viji Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H. B. Ramcharan Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri A.R. Raghu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sajjan Raj Vs the President

Mr. Tilak Dath Chowdri G, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Narayanappa Vs State of Karnataka