- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5971 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MR. SOMASHEKAR H.B., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. BASAVARAJ M , RESIDING AT TIRUMALAPURA, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, BENGALURU -560073 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001. 2. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MADANAYAKANAHALLI MUNICIPALITY, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU -560162. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY V. HCGP FOR R1; SRI.RAVISHANKAR.A., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER / NOTICE BEARING NO. MA.NA.KA/AA.SHA/2023-24/130 DATED 10/01/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice/order bearing No.Ma.Na.Ka/Aa.Sha/2023-24/130 dated 10.01.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 cancelling the No Objection Certificate (henceforth referred to as ‘NOC’ for short) for sinking a borewell. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to restore the No Objection Certificate dated 28.12.2023 and permit him to extract and utilize the water drawn from the borewell. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he being the lawful owner of a property had sought for a No-objection Certificate from the respondent No.2 for the purpose of sinking a borewell in his property. Accordingly, a NOC dated 28.12.2023 was issued by the respondent No.2. When the petitioner had taken - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025 steps for sinking a borewell, the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 10.01.2024 alleged violation of condition No.4 and unilaterally cancelled the NOC without prior notice. (ii) The petitioner claims that he came to know of the cancellation only when he visited the office of the respondent No.2 on 10.01.2025, when a local municipal official interfered with the extraction of water from a borewell. The petitioner claims that he had caused a notice on 17.01.2025 to the respondent No.2 to withdraw the cancellation and clarify whether he had to obtain any further permission. However, the respondent No.2 did not reply to the same but had interfered with the activity undertaken by the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the cancellation of the NOC issued by the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner has sunk the borewell after obtaining the NOC. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 cannot now cancel the NOC given long after the borewell is sunk. He also contends that as per the notice dated 10.01.2024, the respondent No.2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025 without issuing any notice, has straightaway cancelled the NOC without following the due process of law. He therefore contends that the impugned notice of cancellation of the NOC is liable to be set at nought. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 after securing instructions submitted that as per the Karnataka Ground Water (Regulation for Protection of Sources of Drinking Water) Act, 1999 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1999' for short), No-objection Certificate should be compulsorily obtained from the respondent No.2 before sinking a borewell. He contends that though a NOC was issued to the petitioner, since the property is located within 500 meters from the borewell sunk by the respondent No.2, the impugned order was necessitated due to circumstances. He contends that the petitioner has been using the water extracted from his borewell for commercial activity and taking into account the public interest, the respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order. 5. He also submits that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 of the Act, 1999. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 7. The petitioner was granted a NOC by the respondent No.2 to sink the borewell in his property. Accordingly, the petitioner sunk the borewell and has been using it. The respondent No.2 now alleging that the subsequent NOC was granted under a misconception and thereby issued the impugned notice cancelling the NOC issued by it earlier. It is a salutary principle of law that before withdrawing a benefit conferred upon the petitioner by the respondent No.2, it ought to have issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the NOC issued earlier should not be recalled or withdrawn. However, the impugned notice shows a unilateral withdrawal of the NOC. 8. In that view of the matter, even though there is the remedy of an appeal available to the petitioner, since the principles of natural justice was not followed while issuing the impugned notice, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43271 WP No. 5971 of 2025 by which the no objection given to the petitioner was cancelled, shall be treated as a notice. The petitioner shall file his objections to the notice and the respondent No.2 may pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of the petitioner submitting a reply. Until then, the respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the petitioner using the borewell. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26