Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 84849 (KAR)

SHRI PRASHANT S/O SUKUMAR HUKKERI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/103921/2024 · 2025-11-10

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15326 WP No. 103921 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103921 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI PRASHANT S/O SUKUMAR HUKKERI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. NEAR JAIN BASADI, RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, PIN-560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, OPP. SIDDAPPA KAMBLI LAW COLLEGE, DHARWAD-03. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-587 104. 5. THE PRESIDENT, THE LAKSHMISEN EDUCATION (R), RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15326 WP No. 103921 of 2024 6. THE SECRETARY, THE LAKSHMISEN EDUCATION (R), RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO TRANSFER THE “MAHAVEER BHAVAN” TO SCHOOL BUILDING FOR SCHOOL PURPOSE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to transfer the ‘Mahaveer Bhavan’ for school purposes. 2. The Mahaveer Bhavan is constructed by respondents No.5 and 6. Government has sanctioned Rs.20 lakhs for construction of the building and respondents No.5 and 6 claim to have invested Rs.2,12,66,353/- to put-up the structure. 3. Structure is not built on the property of the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be resident of the same town and further claims that his father was the founder of respondent No.5 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15326 WP No. 103921 of 2024 – School. Merely because the petitioner’s father was the founder of the school that does not give the petitioner a cause of action to file a petition of this nature. 4. If any public interest is involved, the petitioner has to file an appropriate petition. 5. Under these circumstances, without entering into the merits of the matter, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP CT:BCK