Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29879 (KAR)

PRADEEP KUMAR G v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15908/2026 · 2026-06-19

B M Shyam Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30349 WP No. 15908 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15908 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: PRADEEP KUMAR G G S/O. GURU SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS GOLLARAHALLI MUDUDI ARASASIKERE HASSAN KARNATAKA-573119 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHUSHANKAR C, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES HASSN DISTRICT HASSAN Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30349 WP No. 15908 of 2026 3. THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES HASSAN SUB DIVISON, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 4. THE MANAGER (MARKETING) OFFICE OF THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES HASSAN SUB DIVISON, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-560001 6. SRI.PATEL SHIVANNA S/O PATEL HIRIYANNAGOWDA, GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, MUDUDI POST, ARASIKER TALUK, HASSAN-573119. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE A IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. NAE456MIAPRA2025(E) DATED 29.09.2025 PASSED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN APPOINTING SRI. PATEL SHIVAPPA AS PRESIDENT, ARISEKERE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(A) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1987. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30349 WP No. 15908 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a member of a Sangha as is the sixth respondent. There are certain proceedings against the sixth respondent on the allegations of misappropriation, and the petitioner's case is that the sixth respondent, in view of the complaint and an alleged enquiry, could not have been appointed as the President of Hassan Urban Development Authority. This sixth respondent’s appointment is vide the Notification dated 29.09.2025. The petitioner's prayer in this writ petition reads as under. "Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. NAE456MIAPRA2025(E) dated 29.09.2025 passed by the I respondent vide Annexure H in appointing Sri. Patel Shivappa as President, Arisekere Development Authority, issued under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30349 WP No. 15908 of 2026 Section 3(A) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987." If the petitioner seeks quashing of an appointment, it would be incumbent upon the petitioner to show locus. In the facts set forth, this Court does not discern any circumstances in which the petitioner could assert such locus. The petition therefore stands rejected without prejudice to the petitioner to avail the remedy as permissible in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB