- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19346 WP No. 6059 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6059 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. TASNEEM KHANUM, WIFE OF PARVEEZ AHMED, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 22, NARAYANA PILLAI STREET CROSS, PEETIGREW STREET, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. PARVEEZ AHMED, SON OF MOHAMMED DAWOOD, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 43, COOKS ROAD, BHARATHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. SRI. ATHAVULLA, SON OF SHAJADI B, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 8, SLATER HOUSE ROAD, SHIVAJINAGR, BANGALORE - 560 051. 4. SRI. MOHAMMED KALEEM, SON OF PYARE JAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 8, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19346 WP No. 6059 of 2025 SLATER HOUSE ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 051. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJI KUMAR A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDAH, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. SINCHANA M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19346 WP No. 6059 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking direction at the hands of this Court against respondent No.2 to remove the marking shown on the shops at No.55, HKP road, Noah street, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. Consequently, a further direction is also sought at the hands of this Court against respondent No.2 not to interfere with the petitioner's right to run a liquor shop in the above said street. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2/BBMP. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) submits that several complaints have been received by respondent No.2 from the general public alleging obstruction of public passage on Noah Street by the petitioner and other similarly placed shopkeepers. It is specifically alleged that these shopkeepers are blocking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19346 WP No. 6059 of 2025 the road by dumping old tyres, thereby impeding free movement of pedestrians and vehicles. In light of these complaints, marshals were deputed by respondent No.2 to inspect the area and take necessary steps to ensure that the road remains unobstructed. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner appears to have approached this Court under the apprehension that he would be evicted from the shop premises located on Noah Street, although no such action is presently contemplated by respondent No.2. 4. Upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that the relief sought by the petitioner is premised entirely on an unfounded apprehension rather than any concrete action or inaction on the part of respondent No.2. There is no material placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner is being dispossessed or that any coercive action has been initiated by respondent No.2 to remove him from the shop premises. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that there is no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19346 WP No. 6059 of 2025 immediate proposal to dispossess the petitioner and that the visit by marshals was purely for the purpose of ascertaining whether the public road was being encroached or obstructed by dumping of old tyres by the petitioner and other traders in the vicinity, which affects the rights of pedestrians and other road users. 5. In view of the clear statement made by the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for issuance of any writ or direction at this stage. It is a settled principle that a writ of mandamus may be issued only when there is a clear and established inaction or failure on the part of a public authority to discharge a statutory duty, and where a corresponding legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. In the present case, neither any right of the petitioner has been shown to be violated nor any statutory inaction demonstrated. Accordingly, no interference is warranted by this Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19346 WP No. 6059 of 2025 exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK