Partly allowed

Sri Gowtham D v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2026WP/38688/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deputy Commissioner blocked Karnataka One Centre operator's login credentials over overcharging complaints without notice. Court held the stigmatic action required a reasonable opportunity to show cause, treated the endorsement as a show-cause notice, allowed liberty to file representation, and restrained third-party contracts meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement treated as show-cause notice; liberty to file representation by 13.02.2026; reasoned order directed; third-party contracts restrained till decision.

Sri Gowtham D v Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4170 WP No. 38688 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 38688 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI GOWTHAM D V AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O SRI. VISHWANATH D.R, SUBHASH NAGAR, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K S GANESHA.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF E-GOVERNANCE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU 577101

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.ADITYA DIWAKARA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:4170 WP No. 38688 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

¶22

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

¶23

A. QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING REFERENCE NUMBER DCCKM-

¶24

REVOPGCM/MISC/632/2025 (E-942584) DATED 30-10-2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH RESTORE THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE PETITIONER TO OPERATE THE KARNATAKA ONE CENTER AT KADUR,

¶25

CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶27

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:4170 WP No. 38688 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner is overseeing the operations of Karnataka One Centre in Halepete, Kadur Taluk, and the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner [the second respondent] has issued the impugned Endorsement dated 30.10.2025 [Annexure-B] informing the petitioner that because of certain deficiencies in the operation of this Centre, the login credentials have been blocked keeping the entrustment under suspension. The second respondent has observed that the complaint against the petitioner is that he is charging a fee more than the prescribed fee for the services at the Centre.

¶34

Sri K S Ganesha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because it is indisputable that the second respondent has decided to block the login credentials without even an opportunity to the petitioner to show that the complaints are ill-founded, and the learned

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:4170 WP No. 38688 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

counsel submits that the petitioner will be prejudiced if the order were to prevail and third party rights are created to operate the Centre. Sri Aditya Diwakara, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances.

¶39

It remains indisputable that the second respondent has proceeded to issue the impugned Endorsement without extending an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the action of blocking the credentials. This Court finds that because the petitioner is prejudiced by this decision which is stigmatic, the second respondent should have extended a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the complaint, and therefore, there must be interference. This Court must interfere to ensure that the proceedings are restored for reconsideration by the second respondent with due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:4170 WP No. 38688 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

At this stage, Sri K S Ganesha submits that if in the meantime the second respondent finalises a contract with a third party for operating the Centre, the petitioner would be made to suffer without a reasonable opportunity. Indeed, if third party rights are created when the petitioner is being heard, the opportunity to the petitioner will not be real, and therefore, the second respondent must decide on the merits of the complaint expeditiously. Hence, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

[a] The petition is allowed in part treating the impugned Endorsement dated 30.10.2025 [Annexure-B] has an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the allegation and the proposed action.

¶46

[b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a representation with the second respondent along with a certified copy of

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:4170 WP No. 38688 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

this order on 13.02.2026 and the second

¶51

respondent is called upon to consider the

¶52

cause shown and pass a reasoned order at

¶53

the earliest.

¶54

[c] The second respondent is also called upon not to finalise contracts with a third party unless a decision as afore is taken, or the petitioner's contract terminates otherwise.

¶55

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶56

AN/-

Sri Gowtham D v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gowtham D v. Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Mohana G K Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Abhisheka Properties Vs the Principal Secretary

The Manager Vs Smt Meenakshi

Kishore Babu T Vs the Bank of Baroda

Mr Anil Mensinkai Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Sajan Aiyappa Vs Managing Director and CEO Canara Bank