L Y DESAI MEMORIAL SPARSH MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/2858/2026 · 2026-07-15
Suraj Govindaraj
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 29241 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 29241 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010059402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36108 WP No. 2858 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2858 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
L Y DESAI MEMORIAL SPARSH MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN DR. S.RADHAKRISHNA NAGAR MULGUND ROAD, GADAG-582103 REP. BY ITS SPA, SRI. DHANESHAGOUDA S/O LINGANAGOUDA (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 2007) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED MOHAMMED IRBAZ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARUN JAYKUMAR PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2.
THE SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE TTMC A BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR SHANTINAGAR, KH ROAD
BENGALURU-560027 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
'LJLWDOO\VLJQHG E\6+:(7+$ 5$*+$9(1'5$ /RFDWLRQ+,*+ &28572) .$51$7$.$
- 2 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010059402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36108 WP No. 2858 of 2026
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND E1 DATED: 24.06.2023 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to consider the representation of Petitioner dated 24/6/2023 vide Annexure-E & E1 in the interest of justice & equity;
ii. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the
facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.”
3. The petitioner claims that the petitioner being a hospital had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with respondent No.2 with an intention to make available medical benefits to the citizens of the State by treating and diagnosing select ailments. In terms of Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner claims to have rendered
- 3 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010059402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36108 WP No. 2858 of 2026
several services and raised invoices, which were not paid. Hence, the petitioner had submitted representations dated 24.06.2023 at Annexure-E, series, which have also not been considered. It is in that background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Whenever any contractual arrangement is entered into by the State or any organization promoted by the State, it is required for the said authority to act on the said Memorandum of Understanding and release the amounts, which are due.
5. In the present case, when the amounts were not released, representations at Annexure-E series were submitted in the year 2023, which have also not been considered. These representations were required to be considered and necessary orders passed, within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the representations.
6. Needless to say, if an order of rejection were to be passed, it ought to have been accompanied by reasons.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010059402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36108 WP No. 2858 of 2026
None of that having been done, the petitioner is left with no option.
7. As such, this Court passes the following order. a) Writ petition is allowed. b) A mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioner at Annexure-E series, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties and any other contractual documents. c) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of petitioner. The same would have to be ascertained on the basis of the contractual documents.
Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6