M/S. AUTO RICKSHAW UNION (R) HEJAMADI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/21486/2025 · 2025-08-01
B M Shyam Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 90557 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 90557 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21486 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. AUTO RICKSHAW UNION (R) HEJAMADI (R) REGD UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES ACT, 1959 BUS STAND, UDUPI-574103. NEAR HEJAMADI BUS STAND
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. SHEKAR HEJMADI, S/O. SRI. JANU MUKHARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/10, HEJAMADI POST, UDUPI 574103. 2. MANJUNATH BHANDARI, S/O. SHEENA BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. HEJAMADI POST, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI 574103. 3. GANESH BANGERA, S/O. KORAGA BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. HEJAMADI POST, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI 574103. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025
4. VITTALA, S/O. KUDAKA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. HEJAMADI POST, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI 574103. 5. SURESH PAI S/O. SADANANDA PAI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. HEJAMADI POST, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI - 574103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KIRAN N.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101. 3. THE ASSITANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NO.1 SUB DIVISION, CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD, BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI-574154. 4. THE SUPERITENDENTING ENGINEER, MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, 2ND FLOOR, MESCOM BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOM, KAVOOR CROSS ROAD, BEJAI,
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025
MANGALORE-575004. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O AND M), MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, SRIDEVI COMPLEX, PADUBIDIRI, UDUPI 574111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAGHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. SA.KA.EM/ LOEUV/ UDUPI/ ANADIKRUTHA ATHIKRAMANA/ HEJAMADI/ UPA LOKAYUKTA/ 2024- 25/A.E(KA) 3659-66 DATED 15.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE P-1 APPENDED VIDE ANNX-C1; QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. SA.KA.EM/ LOEUV/ UDUPI/ANADIKRUTHA ATHIKRAMANA/HEJAMADI/UPA LOKAYUKTA/2024-25/A.E(KA) 3411-17 DTD. 17.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE P-2 APPENDED VIDE ANNX-C2; QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. SA.KA.EM/ LOEUV/ UDUPI/ ANADIKRUTHA ATHIKRAMANA/HEJAMADI/ UPA LOKAYUKTA/2024- 25/A.E(KA) 3425-31 DATED 17.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE P-3 APPENDED VIDE ANNX-C3 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are issued with the impugned notices, and they assert that this Court must quash these notices and direct the second and the third respondents to extend them sufficient opportunity. It is seen from the impugned notices that the third respondent has called upon the petitioners to vacate what is described as an illegal construction put up encroaching a road. If Sri Kiran N, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the interim orders granted by this Court in W.P.No. 9097/2025 and two other matters as per Annexure-E series, argues that this Court must stay demolition, Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is instructed by the third respondent, is categorical that notices have been issued because it is ascertained that the petitioners have encroached a State Highway
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29814 WP No. 21486 of 2025
and that if the petitioners do not themselves remove the unauthorised constructions, action will be taken under the relevant statute for eviction and demolition. This Court is of the considered view that this statement allays all fears of immediate demolition without immediate demolition or demolition without notice. As such, the petition stands disposed calling upon the respondents to ensure that the petitioners are not dispossessed without due process. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
NV