Bowring Institute v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2026WP/50118/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ, GM-RES; Bowring Institute; 99-year lease dated 01.06.1956; St. Mark's Road Bangalore; Government order dated 11.02.1969 permitting sub-lease on deposit of 50% rental; sub-lease to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; Deputy Commissioner final notice 19.11.2018 quashed; Rs.3.14 Crores demand; fresh determination after furnishing payment details; liberty to State to enforce lease terms.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the final notice dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-H); petitioner to furnish within 15 days details of payments due under the order dated 11.02.1969, and respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within 60 days of receiving those details; liberty reserved to respondents to act against any violation of the lease or the 1969 order in accordance with law. ¶¶41

Bowring Institute Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the final notice dated 19.11.2018 issued by respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-H), alleging sub-lease to Indian Oil Corporation and appropriation of 50% of rent and demanding Rs.3.14 Crores, was sustainable, being allegedly contrary to the Government Order dated 11.02.1969.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The final notice at Annexure-H dated 19.11.2018 is quashed.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

Petitioner shall, within 15 days of receipt of the order, furnish details of amounts paid to respondent No.1-Government payable in terms of the order dated 11.02.1969 (Annexure-B) and such other details as requisitioned; respondent No.2 shall thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law within 60 days of receipt of such details.ratio¶¶45
Respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate action in accordance with law if they find any violation either of the terms of the lease or of the order dated 11.02.1969.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bowring Institute v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 50118 of 2019 (GM-RES)); High Court of Karnataka, 21.02.2026 (M.G.S. Kamal, J.). The petitioner, lessee of the State since 01.06.1956 (99-year lease) of No.19, St. Mark's Road, Bangalore (Bowring Institute), challenged a final notice dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-H) of the Deputy Commissioner alleging unauthorised sub-lease of 15,000 sq.ft to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and retention of 50% of rent, demanding Rs.3.14 Crores. On the AGA's submission that the notice merely sought details of payments due under the Government order dated 11.02.1969 (which permitted the sub-lease subject to deposit of 50% rentals), the Court quashed the notice, directed the petitioner to furnish payment details within 15 days and the Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 60 days thereof, reserving the State's liberty to proceed against any violation of the lease or the 1969 order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:11034 WP No. 50118 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 50118 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BOWRING INSTITUTE A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.19, ST.MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001, BY ITS HON' SECRETARY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANIAN K.B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MS BUILDINGS,

¶14

BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (NORTH) BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT (NORTH) KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11034 WP No. 50118 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., A PUBLIC SECTOR CORPORATION OF THE UNION OF INDIA, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICES AT NO.27, KALINGA RAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD) BANGALORE-560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. VACHAN H.U., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF THE R-2 DATED 19.11.2018 PRODUCED AS ANNX-H HERETO AS BEING PATENTLY ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 11.02.1969 PRODUCED AS ANNX-B THERETO AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner who is a lessee under the respondent No.1-State, Government in respect of property bearing No.19, St. Mark's Road, Bangalore being used for recreational purposes known and called as Bowring Institute is before this Court aggrieved by the final notice dated 19.11.2018 issued by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, produced at Annexure-H, in terms of which it is

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11034 WP No. 50118 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

alleged that the petitioner apart from sub-leasing a portion of the aforesaid property measuring 150 X 100 feet (15,000 sq.ft) in favour of M/s Indian Oil Corporation, the respondent No.5 herein, is also receiving 50% of the rental payable to the Respondent No.1-State Government and has thus been called upon to pay Rs.3.14 Crores within 7 days.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted lease by the respondent No.1-State Government on 01.06.1956 for the period of 99 years. That by subsequent order dated 11.02.1969 upon the specific request made by the petitioner seeking permission to grant sub-lease of aforesaid portion measuring 150 X 100 in favour of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation, the respondent No.1-State had permitted for grant of sub-lease subject to condition of petitioner depositing 50% of the rental receivable. He submits that the petitioner-Institute has been diligently following and performing the terms of the said order till date. That the respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner without providing any opportunity whatsoever on his own illusion and surmises

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11034 WP No. 50118 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

has issued the final notice alleging petitioner has sub-leased and is appropriating 50% of the rent which is incorrect. Hence, seeks for indulgence.

¶36

Learned AGA submits all the impugned notice intended is to seek details of the payment made by the petitioner as per Annexure B. She submits if the petitioner furnishes the details, appropriate order in that regard will be passed. She further submits that, if there be any violation of the terms of the lease including the order at Annexure B, liberty be reserved to the respondent No.1-State to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶37

Submission is placed on record.

¶38

In view of the above, the following:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

a) Final notice at Annexure-H dated 19.11.2018 is

¶41

quashed .

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11034 WP No. 50118 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

b) Petitioner shall within 15 days from the date of

¶45

receipt of this order furnish the details of the amounts paid to the Respondent No.1 - Government payable in terms of the order dated 11.02.1969 produced Annexure-B and shall also furnish such other details as may be requisitioned for in furtherance of the said order by the respondent No.2, who shall thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within 60 days of receipt of such details from the petitioner.

¶46

c) Respondent authorities however at liberty to initiate such action if they find any violation either of the terms aforesaid lease or of the order dated 11.02.1969 in accordance with law.

¶47

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶48

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Bowring Institute v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bowring Institute 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

Shri S Chandrakar Vs Shri R Margabhandhu

Syed Akmal Pasha Vs Smt. Shakeera Begum Since Deceased by Her Lr'S Sri. Ameer Hussain

S G Ramachandrappa Vs D Ramachandrappa

Sri.C. Venkateshalu Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Sri K Murali Vs State of Karnataka

Bms Educational Trust Vs Karnataka Information Commission