Disposed¶62

Bhutharaja V.S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WP/36991/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

public interest litigation; mandamus; Article 226; Article 227; Rule 14(1) PIL Rules 2018; illegal lorry movement; mining; iron ore mine; JSW Steel Ltd; Vinod Kumar Deshmukh; village road damage; metalled road worn out; air pollution; representations Annexure-A A1-A4; consider representations; eight weeks; preliminary hearing; disposed; Chitradurga; V. Palya village; Karnataka High Court; division bench; Vibhu Bakhru Chief Justice; C.M. Poonacha; NC: 2026:KHC:175-DB; WP No. 36991 of 2025

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioners' representations and to communicate their decision to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. ¶62

Bhutharaja V.S Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents No.1 to 8 should be directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 18.06.2025, 21.06.2025, 16.08.2025, 17.09.2025 and 18.08.2025 (Annexure-A, A1 to A4). +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

In view of the averments made in the petition, the Court considered it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

The respondents were directed to communicate their decision to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.

¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest litigation writ petition (WP No. 36991 of 2025 (GM-RES-PIL)) by nine residents of V. Palya Village, Chitradurga Taluk, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 14(1) of the High Court of Karnataka (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2018, praying for a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No.1 to 8 to consider representations dated 18.06.2025, 21.06.2025, 16.08.2025, 17.09.2025 and 18.08.2025 (Annexure-A, A1 to A4) and to take immediate steps against Respondents No.9 and 10 (the Bhomman Iron Ore Mine operated by JSW Steel Ltd) for allegedly running lorries illegally over the village road, which the petitioners contend was a metalled road worn out by overuse by heavy lorries carrying mining materials, causing immense air pollution. At preliminary hearing, notice being accepted by the Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (oral order per Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice; bench included C.M. Poonacha, Judge) disposed of the petition on 05.01.2026, directing the respondents to consider the representations and communicate their decision to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks. No precedent was cited or discussed; no monetary quantum arises.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:175-DB WP No. 36991 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 36991 OF 2025 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BHUTHARAJA V.S. S/O SHIVAKUMAR B.V AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT # 00, V.RALYA VILLAGE V.PALYA POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶10

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

VENKATESH. M S/O MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT S.H. HALLI GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE KADUR, CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 523

¶12

VENKATESHA V.S. S/O SHIVAKUMAR B.V. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT # 83, V.PALYA VILLAGE V. PALYA POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶13

SANJAY KUMAR V.L. S/O LOKESH M.V. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:175-DB WP No. 36991 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

R/AT V. PALYA VILLAGE

¶17

V. PALYA POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶18

M.H. LOKESH S/O M.V. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT V. PALYA VILLAGE V. PALYA POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶19

B.V. SHIVAKUMARA S/O BHOVI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT V. PALYA VILLAGE V. PALYA POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶20

SMT. KUSUMAMMA W/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT V. PALYA VILLAGE V. PALYA POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶21

SRI RENUKA PRASANNA R S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT V. PALYA VILLAGE V. PALYA POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶22

M.H. THEERTHESH S/O M.V. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT V. PALYA VILLAGE V.PALYA POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE)

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:175-DB WP No. 36991 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY R/BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶29

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA

¶30

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶31

THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHITRADURGA TOWN & TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶32

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICER CHITRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶33

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT CHITRADURGA TOWN AND TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶34

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶35

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶36

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ENGINEER PUBLIC WELFARE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL OFFICE CHITRADURGA TOWN AND TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶37

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OFFICE OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH BHEEMASAMUDRA

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:175-DB WP No. 36991 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶42

SRI VINOD KUMAR DESHMUKH MINES MANAGER BHOMMAN IRON ORE MINE OPERATED BY JSW STEEL LTD BEDARA BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE V. PALYA POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520

¶43

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR JSW STEEL LTD JSW STEEL LTD, LB-65 VIDYANAGAR TOWNSHIP TORANAGALLU SANDUR TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 123

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 7)

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH RULE 14(1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) RULES, 2018 PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 8 HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 18.06.2025, 21.06.2025, 16.08.2025, 17.09.2025 & 18.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, A1 TO A4 AND TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS AGAINST THE MINING COMPANY I.E., RESPONDENTS No.9 TO 10 WHO ARE RUNNING LORRY ILLEGALLY OVER THE ROAD OF THE ABOVE SAID VILLAGE.

¶47

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

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:175-DB WP No. 36991 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶53

Issue notice. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent ‒ State .

¶54

The petitioners state that they are residents of V.Palya Village, Chitradurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. They have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

¶55

"Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondents No.1 to 8 herein to consider the representations dated 18-08-2025, 21-06-2025, 16-08-2025 & 17-09-2025 & 18-18-2025 Vide Annexure-A, A1 to A4 and to take immediate steps against the mining company i.e., Respondents No.9 to 10 who are running lorry illegally over the road of the above said village in the interest of justice and equity."

¶56

The petitioners contend that a road passing through their village ‒ photographs of which are annexed in the petition, was a metalled road. However, due to overuse by heavy lorries carrying mining materials, the metal has been completely worn out and the use of the said road is causing immense pollution. They contended

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:175-DB WP No. 36991 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

that it has become difficult for the villagers to live in the village on account of air pollution.

¶61

In view of the averments made in the present petition, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations and communicate their decision to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from date.

¶62

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶63

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶64

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶65

AHB

¶66

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Bhutharaja V.S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhutharaja V.S 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

Sri B S Suresh Vs the Chief Commissioner

Mr Syed Tabraiz Vs M/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Pramod Kumar P. Laxmin Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sai Sri Blue Metals Vs the Chief Secretary

M/S Systems 5S Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Chakoli Appalal Vs Mr v Manamohan