- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48891 WP No. 8935 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8935 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. G.R.NAGESH S/O G.R. RANGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.F-10, 'SRI RANGADHAMA' GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA-577205. 2. K.B. THIMMAPPA S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FL-117, 'NANDIKESHWARA' GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA-577205. 3. K.M. NAGARAJ S/O K. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.32, 'NAVARATNA NIVASA', SHARANA VEERESHA LAYOUT, (AL-HAREEM LAYOUT) GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA-577205. 4. H.R. ONKARAPPA S/O LATE K. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.259, 'SRI VEERABHADRESHWARA KRUPA', (AL-HAREEM LAYOUT) GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA-577205. 5. G. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O K. GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, PRESS COLONY, GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA-577205. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B HARAVI GOWDAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48891 WP No. 8935 of 2018 AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA- 577201. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA -577201. 5. THE COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA MAHANAGARA PALIKE SHIVAMOGGA -577201. 6. THE SECRETARY SHIVAMOGGA MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SHIVAMOGGA -577201. 7. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHIVAMOGGA MAHANAGARA PALIKE SHIVAMOGGA -577201. 8. THE TAHASILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA -577201. 9. AL.HAREEM MUSLIM WELFARE AND CHARITABLE TRUST WARD NO.16, SHIVAMOGGA CITY -577205 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 AND 8; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48891 WP No. 8935 of 2018 SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7; SRI. K. MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.07.2017 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged a resolution dated 26.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.5 - Corporation by which a request made by the respondent No.9 to construct a Dharmashala was granted. They have sought to quash a building licence dated 28.12.2017 issued by respondent No.7 to respondent No.9. They have also sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to consider their representation dated 29.01.2018. 2. (i) The petitioners contend that they are all residents of Al-Hareem layout. The respondent No.9 proposed to construct a Dharmashala in a property belonging to it. Following the request made by the respondent No.9, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48891 WP No. 8935 of 2018 respondent No.5 - Corporation published its proposal to grant permission in two newspapers, following which, petitioners filed objections. The respondent No.5 - Corporation without considering the objections, passed the impugned resolution permitting the respondent No.9 to construct a Dharmashala. Following this, the respondent No.7 granted a licence. (ii) Being aggrieved by the said resolution and the licence granted, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.5 - Corporation had issued a publication inviting objections from aggrieved persons and that the petitioners being affected parties, had filed objections and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.5 - Corporation to consider the objections. However, the respondent No.5 - Corporation had cursorily rejected the objections and proceeded to grant sanction. He therefore, contends that the impugned resolution being one without the application of mind, is liable to be quashed. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.9 who has filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that it - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48891 WP No. 8935 of 2018 is a Muslim Welfare and Charitable Trust, which is established to promote and impart Arabic language in Madrasas and other educational institutions. It is claimed that it is the owner of the property bearing khata No.3588/3588 situated at Al-Hareem Extension and that it applied to the respondent No.5 - Corporation for grant of licence for construction of Dharmashala on 20.09.2017. It is contended that the respondent No.5 - Corporation after examining the application and the documents and after calling objections from the general public had sanctioned the building licence on 28.12.2017. It is contended that it is not constructing Masjid or Mosque but is constructing a building for educational purpose by complying all terms imposed by respondent No.5 - Corporation. It is also claimed that since the respondent No.9 is proposing to construct Dharmashala to teach Arabic language to children belonging to the Muslim community, it would not cause any inconvenience or problem to the general public. Therefore, it is contended that the petition is misplaced and mischievous and is an abuse of process of Court. Even otherwise, it is contended that the resolution passed by respondent No.5 - Corporation is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48891 WP No. 8935 of 2018 appealable before the Deputy Commissioner and hence, the writ petition cannot be entertained. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 submits that after respondent No.9 made a request for licence to construct a Dharmashala in accordance with the Circular dated 19.09.2009, the respondent No.5 - Corporation has published notification in two daily newspapers. He contended that the petitioners had filed their objections pursuant to the publication made in the newspapers and the respondent No.5 - Corporation and after considering the same, has passed the impugned resolution. He therefore, contends that the objections of the petitioners are considered and hence, no interference is warranted with the resolution. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.9 also reiterated the above contentions and submitted that respondent No.9 does not propose to construct Masjid or Mosque but proposes to construct a school to impart Arabic language to students of the Muslim community and therefore, the petitioners would not be affected. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48891 WP No. 8935 of 2018 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.9. 8. The respondent No.5 - Corporation had invited the objections from the general public in respect of grant of licence to the respondent No.9 to construct a building for running a Dharmashala. The petitioners who claimed to be the residents of Al-Hareem layout had filed their objections. When once the respondent No.5 - Corporation had invited the objections from interested persons, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.5 to consider the same and pass suitable orders before proceeding to consider the request of the respondent No.9. A perusal of the impugned resolution shows that there was no application of mind to the objections filed by the petitioners. There was not even a cursory reference as to what were the objections. In that view of the matter, the impugned resolution though could be assailed before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 309 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, yet since the same is without due application of mind, this Court considers it appropriate to set aside the same. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48891 WP No. 8935 of 2018 9. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed off. The impugned resolution dated 26.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.5 - Corporation is set aside. The respondent No.5 - Corporation is directed to reconsider the objections of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is open for the respondent No.5 - Corporation to take decision on the request made by respondent No.9 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49