Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 74522 (KAR)

B.R. MANJUNATH v. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR

WP/32558/2024 · 2025-10-09

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40067 WP No. 32558 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32558 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: B.R. MANJUNATH, S/O. LATE RAJANNA. B. V., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BEEKALLI VILLAGE, HANDLI POST, KODLIPET HOBLI, SOMAVARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 235. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHIDANANDA SWAMY B A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, SOMAVARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236. 2. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, HANDLI VILLAGE POST, KODLIPET HOBLI, SOMAVARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 235. 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KODLIPET NADAKACHERI, SOMAVARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDDARTH BABURAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS DATED 29.08.2024, 02.09.2024, 28.09.2024 AND 05.11.2024 VIDE AT ANNEXURES-G1, H1, K1 AND L1 AND TO ISSUE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40067 WP No. 32558 of 2024 DOMICILE CERTIFICATE BY ACCEPTING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. "To issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the R-1 to 3 to consider the applications dated 29.08.2024, 02.09.2024, 28.09.2024 and 05.11.2024 vide at Annexures-G1, H1, K1 and L1 and to issue Domicile Certificate by accepting the relevant documents furnished by the petitioner. b. Pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the " 2. The learned AGA submits that the applications which have been filed have already been rejected. 3. In that view of the matter, the relief which has been sought for mandamus is not maintainable. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order passed by the respondent, petition stands disposed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRSList No.: 1 Sl No.: 58