SHANKARGOUDA S/O BASANAGOUDA GOUDAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/105692/2024 · 2025-03-17
Jyoti Mulimani
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 47352 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 47352 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4833 WP No. 105692 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 105692 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SHANKARGOUDA S/O BASANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AT.POST: MAROL VILLAGE, HUNGUND-587 118, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVI.K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, RPTD. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, KUDALASANGAMA-587 112, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE-587 101, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 4. THE KUDALA SANGAMA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, RPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUDALASANGAMA-587 112,
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4833 WP No. 105692 of 2024
HUNAGUND, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 5. KADAVU INSPECTOR, DEPT.OF PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, BAGALKOTE DIVISION, BAGALKOTE-587 103, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOTE. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF DEPT. OF PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, KARWAR-581 302, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 7. SHRI. VIVEKANANDAYYA S/O RACHAYYA HIREMATH, KUDALASANGAMA-587 112, HUNAGUND, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR., AGA FOR R1-3, 5, 6;
SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND., ADVOCATE FOR R7;
*SRI. D.V.PATTAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Pruthvi K.S., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Praveen K.Uppar., AGA for respondents 1 to 3 and 6 and Sri.H.M.Dharigond., counsel for respondent No.7 have appeared in person. * Corrected Vide Court Order dated:22.04.2025
Sd/- Judge
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4833 WP No. 105692 of 2024
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: A) Issue a Writ in nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned endorsement dated 05.10.2023 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-F. B) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing respondent No.4 to consider the recommendation dated 04.09.2024 vide Annexure-H sent by respondent No.3 and to pass appropriate order in taking appropriate action against respondent No.7.
C) Issue an appropriate direction by directing the respondents 2 and 4 to carry the passengers pursuant to the License No.JWT/118/2010, License No.IWT/13(A)/2023, License No.IWT/14(A)/2023 of River Worthiness of Ferry Craft at Kudalasangam Vihar, Kudalasangama, Taluk: Hunagund, District: Bagalkote issued to the petitioner vide Annexures-A, A1 and A2, without any interruption from the respondents. - 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4833 WP No. 105692 of 2024
3. The short facts are these: The petitioner contends that he applied for license of River Worthiness of Ferry Craft to carry passengers at Kudalasangama Vihar, Kudalasangama, Taluk: Hungund, District Bagalkote. The sixth respondent by an order granted the certificate to carry Ferry Craft through license No.JWT/118/2010 as per the proviso of the Karnataka Inland Vessel Rules for a period from 28.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 and thereafter the license has been renewed from time to time. It is said that for the year 2024-25, the petitioner submitted the application for renewal of Ferry Craft for passengers before the fourth and fifth respondents and they issued NOC letter to run for the year 2024-25 by specifying to provide particular documents for running of Ferry Craft at Kudalasangama and the same has been forwarded to the fifth respondent to issue renewal of license. The petitioner accordingly furnished the documents and license was renewed for Ferry Craft to carry passengers for the year 2024-25 vide Annexure-B1. As things stood thus, it appears that the seventh respondent applied for license of River Worthiness of Ferry Craft to carry passengers at Kudalasangama Vihar,
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4833 WP No. 105692 of 2024
Kudalasangama, Taluk: Hungund, District Bagalkote. The fourth respondent issued an endorsement on 05.10.2023. This endorsement is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
5. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the endorsement issued by the fourth respondent. The endorsement is furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-F. It is dated
05.10.2023. Suffice it to note that the seventh respondent has applied for license of River Worthiness of Ferry Craft to carry passengers at Kudalasangama Vihar, Kudalasangama, Hungund Taluk. In the endorsement, the fourth respondent has simply stated that the application submitted by the seventh respondent has been forwarded to the competent authority to do the needful in the matter. It is also stated that after getting the necessary permission from the competent authority, the
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4833 WP No. 105692 of 2024
Board has no objection for the seventh respondent to run the Ferry Craft for the passengers.
6. Sri.H.M.Dharigond., counsel in presenting his
arguments submits that as of today, the license is not yet granted to the seventh respondent. The oral submission made by the counsel is placed on record. Because the license is not yet granted to the seventh respondent, petitioner cannot have any grievance about the issuance of the endorsement. In my view the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected. Needless to say, the Writ Petition is filed based on the apprehension. The future apprehension cannot be predicted as of today.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Because of the rejection of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim
order if any granted by this Court stands discharged.
Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,CLK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 52.1