- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41866 WP No. 7725 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7725 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MALLESHA S/O. LATE RACHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.24/1, NEAR RAILWAY EXTENSION, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. £À.¸À.ZÁ/D.¸Á./¦.Dgï/01/2024-25 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41866 WP No. 7725 of 2025 28.11.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-M PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAME AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ILLEGAL CONTRARY AND ISSUED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND AGAINST TO THE ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 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 petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.£À.¸À.ZÁ/D.¸Á/¦.Cgï/01/2024-25 dated 28.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby his application for grant of a licence was refused. He has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to renew his licence and permit him to use the premises for parking two wheelers. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent No.3 from trespassing or interfering with the business carried on by him except by due process of law. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he runs a tea shop at his residence in Chamarajanagara town and had obtained a licence from respondent No.2 for parking two- wheelers. He claims that travelers from Chamarjaanagar to Mysore and other places used to park their two-wheelers in the parking area by paying a fee to him. He claims that he was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41866 WP No. 7725 of 2025 operating the parking facility since 2014 pursuant to the licence granted by respondent No.2. (ii) He claims that when he applied for renewal of the licence for the year 2023-2024, the same was rejected by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by such rejection, he filed W.P.No.28507/2019 before this Court. This Court in terms of an order dated 29.10.2022 directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for renewal and further directed respondent No.2 to grant the licence if the petitioner was eligible for it. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 considered the petitioner's case and renewed the licence by order dated 20.01.2023. (iii) Thereafter, the petitioner applied online for renewal of the licence for the year 2024-2025. Despite repeated requests, the respondent No.2 did not take any action on the application. The petitioner therefore approached this Court in W.P.No.13585/2024 which was allowed in terms of an order dated 09.09.2024 directing respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioner's application and, if he was found eligible, to renew the licence in accordance with law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41866 WP No. 7725 of 2025 3. The respondent No.2 has now issued the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of licence. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the rejection. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land on which the petitioner is providing parking facilities for two-wheelers is not revenue land, as per the mutation extract, and that respondent No.2 itself had issued Form No.3 indicating that the land lies within the panchayat limits. He further contends that the petitioner is paying property tax in respect of the land where the parking facility is provided. Therefore, he contends that there is no legal impediment for respondent No.2 to renew the licence. Besides this, he contends that respondent No.2 has continuously renewed the licence from the year 2014 till date, and therefore, respondent No.2 cannot now reject the request of the petitioner for renewal. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand contends that the petitioner's request was rejected on the ground that the land in question was a revenue land and that without converting the same for non-agricultural purposes, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41866 WP No. 7725 of 2025 the request for renewal cannot be considered. He submits that if the petitioner produces document to show that the land where the petitioner has provided the two-wheeler parking facility is not a revenue land, then the respondent No.2 would reconsider the same. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted a licence to operate a two-wheeler parking facility from the year 2014 and that respondent No.2 renewed the licence for the year 2023-2024. However, when the petitioner applied for renewal of licence for the year 2024-2025, respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner did not obtain conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use. 7. The petitioner claims that the land on which the parking facility is provided lies within the Panchayat limits and that the Panchayat has issued Form No.3 indicating that the land is assessed to tax by the Panchayat. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot deny the request of the petitioner for renewal. If the petitioner is indeed using agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, it is for the appropriate authority to take action in accordance with Section 95 of the Karnataka - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41866 WP No. 7725 of 2025 Land Revenue Act, 1964. Respondent No.2, which is only a licensing authority and not a regulating authority, cannot refuse to renew the licence granted to the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to renew the petitioner's licence for the year 2024-2025 within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Until then, respondent No.2 shall not in any manner disturb or obstruct the petitioner from running the parking facility. 9. It is however open for the appropriate authority to take action if the petitioner is using agricultural land for non- agricultural purposes. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58