- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17908 WP No. 108615 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 108615 OF 2025 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: MUNAPH PATEL KAHADAR PATEL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ENVIRONMENT), BALLARY CITY CORPORATION, DIST: BALLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARY DIST: BALLARY-582101. 3. THE COMMISSIONER BALLARY CITY CORPORATION, DIST: BALLARY-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. NAE 49 ABC 2025(E), BENGALURU, DATED 09.10.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Date: 2025.12.11 16:39:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17908 WP No. 108615 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “To call for the relevant records and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No.NAE 49 ABC 2025(E), Bengaluru, Dated 09.10.2025 passed by the 1ST Respondent vide Annexure-G, as arbitrary and illegal, in the interest of justice and equity and etc.” 2. An interim order was granted by this Court, which reads as follows: “The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of suspension. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Ballari City Corporation. He is placed under suspension for the reason that he has removed the banners that were placed in a circle – sangam circle. The banner is said to be that of the husband of the Corporator of the area. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through a resolution of the Corporation that no banner or advertisement of any kind should be placed in the circle. The resolution of the Corporation reads as follows: «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 323: «µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è eÁ»gÁvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤µÉâü¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. §¼Áîj £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¸ËAzÀAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉaѸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ GzÉÝñÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤì¥À¯ï PÁ¥ÉÇÃðgÉõÀ£ï PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1976gÀ ¸ÉPÀë£ï 133, 134gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV eÁ»gÁvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤µÉâü¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è ¨Áå£Àgï, §AnAUï PÀmËmï ºÁUÀÆ EvÁå¢ eÁ»gÁvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤µÉÃzsÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17908 WP No. 108615 of 2025 ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è MAzÀĪÉÃ¼É ¨Áå£Àgï, §AnAUï PÀmËmï ºÁUÀÆ EvÁå¢ eÁ»gÁvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀ°è Karntaka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act 1981, Section 03 gÀ£ÀßAiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ F PɼÀUÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è eÁ»ÃgÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¨Áå£Àgï, §AnAUï PÀmËmï EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤µÉâü¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄwUÁV ªÀÄAr¹zÉ. ¤µÉâü¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ:- 1)UÀ«AiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÈvÀÛ(ªÉÆÃw ªÀÈvÀÛ). 2)UÀrUÉ ZÉ£ÀߥÀà ªÀÈvÀÛ(gÁAiÀÄ¯ï ªÀÈvÀÛ), 3)ªÁ°äÃQ ªÀÈvÀÛ (J¸ï¦¸ÀPÀð¯ï) 4)¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸ÀPÀð¯ï 5)PÀ£ÀPÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ 6)¸ÀÄzsÁ ªÀÈvÀÛ 7) «zsÁå£ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀð¯ï 8)dUÀfêÀ£ïgÁªï ¸ÀPÀð¯ï (ºÉƸÀ¥ÉÃmï gÀ¸ÉÛ) 9) ¨É¼ÀUÀ¯ï PÁæ¸ï 10)¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ PË®âeÁgï ¸ÀPÀð¯ï 11)MAzÀ£Éà gÉʯÉéÃUÉÃmï ºÀwÛgÀ JqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §®¨sÁUÀ 12)gÉÃrAiÉÆà ¥ÁPïð ¸ÀPÀð¯ï 13)J.¦.JA.¹.ªÀÈvÀÛ 14)PÀƯï PÀ£Àðgï ªÀÈvÀÛ 15)JA.f.¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APï ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ 16) zÀÄUÀðªÀÄä UÀÄr ªÀÈvÀÛ 17) J¯Áè «zÀÆåvï PÀA§UÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ gÀ¸ÉÛ §¢ ªÀÄgÀ/ ¥ÉǯïUÀ¼ÀÄ. F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÁV ªÀÄAr¹zÉ. oÀgÁªÀÅ ¸ÀASÉå 323 PÀbÉÃj n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ªÀÈwÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ¸ÉÛUÀ¼À°è ¨Áå£Àgï, §AnAUï, PÀmïOmï eÁ»ÃgÁvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤µÉâü¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃrvÀÄ. As observed hereinabove, the resolution of the Corporation clearly prohibits a banner, cutout or any kind of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17908 WP No. 108615 of 2025 advertisement to be displayed in sangam circle and if displayed would be in violation of Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981. The petitioner or the officers of the Corporation have now removed the banners that were erected in sangam circle, on the ground that it is contrary to the resolution and is in the prohibited area. Only because the banner was of the husband of the Corporator, an axe of suspension has fallen on the petitioner. The petitioner who has only performed his duty in accordance with law is now facing the ire of suspension only because it is the political masters who are dictating such orders of suspension albeit prima facie. It further shocks that the Commissioner of the Corporation who was a signatory to the resolution of the Corporation quoted supra recommends that the petitioner should be placed under suspension and the Secretary Urban Development has passed an order of suspension on the said score. This would be a classic case of abuse of power by the Disciplinary Authority to place an officer under suspension who has only removed the banner that was erected in a prohibited area. Therefore, the order of suspension which is on the face of it mala fide and a product of abuse of power will not be permitted to stand. The impugned order of suspension shall remain stayed till the next date. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel Sri. Sharanabasavaraj accepts notice for respondent No.3. Petitioner to serve a set of papers upon the aforesaid counsel. List the matter on 02.12.2025 in the fresh matters list. Objections, if any, by the respondents by then.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17908 WP No. 108615 of 2025 3. In the light of the interim order so granted, it transpires that the respondents have recalled the order of suspension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the light of the recall of the order of suspension, nothing further would survive for consideration for the present. 5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court in the event of need in future. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 246