- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40788 WP No. 26329 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.26329 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SOMASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O H M RUDRAIAH NO. 238, 4TH CROSS, 6TH PHASE, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGARA, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 010. 2. BANGALORE AUTO CHALAKARA SOUHARDA CO-OP LTD., NO. 35/B, 2ND CROSS, 50 FT ROAD, W.C.ROAD, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGARA, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PUTHIGE R. RAMESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LAKSHMI E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40788 WP No. 26329 of 2017 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOOD CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER RELATIONS DEPARTMENT MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICE (KARNATAKA) ESI CORPORATION, NO10, BINNIFIELDS BINNIPET, BENGALURU - 560 023. 5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER YESHASWINI CO OP FARMERS HEALTH CARE TRUST, 6TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 6. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER KARMIKA BHAVANA ITI PREMISES, NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R6; SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R4; R5 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2019) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40788 WP No. 26329 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TAKE THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.06.2016 AT ANNEXURE-H TO ITS LOGICAL END BY DIRECTING THE CONCERNED THROUGH POSITIVE DIRECTIONS AND FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION ON A TIME BOUND BASIS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to implement the proceedings dated 01.06.2016 produced at Annexure-H to the writ petition. 2. Heard Sri. Puthige R. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Lakshmi E., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 6, Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned counsel for respondent No.4. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40788 WP No. 26329 of 2017 3. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners by referring to Annexure-H that the Government in its Proceedings dated 01.06.2016 had taken a decision to provide certain benefits in favour of the Bengaluru Auto Drivers Souharda Co-Operative Ltd., and the same has not been implemented and therefore, learned Senior Counsel submitted that a direction be issued to the respondent - Government to implement the Proceedings dated 01.06.2016 (Annexure-H). 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State submitted that though the Proceedings has been conducted on 01.06.2016 as per Annexure-H, however, it is a matter of policy which is in the domain of the Government and therefore, this Court cannot issue writ to the respondent - State to implement the proceedings dated 01.06.2016, as the same is not fiinalised, and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued on similar lines. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40788 WP No. 26329 of 2017 the proceedings held on 01.06.2016, wherein the High Level Committee of the Officers of the Government have resolved to provide certain benefits to the Bengaluru Auto Drivers Souharda Co-Operative Ltd., with regard to their demands made therein. In that view of the matter, as the meeting has been held for the benefit of the petitioner - Society, however since officially decision has to be taken by the Government and it is a policy matter, and therefore, I am of the view that, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the respondent - authorities to implement the policy decision of the Government which is required to be considered by the Government, in accordance with law. 7. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24