- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480762026 NC: 2026:KHC:42799 WP No. 22034 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 22034 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JYOTHI RAMAKANTH W/O SRI. RAMAKANTH S. AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NAYAK BANGLEGUDDE, KARKALA - 574 104, UDUPI DISTRICT. 2. SMT. PADMA MANJUNATH W/O MANJUNATH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SREE MANJUNATHA NURSING HOME BANGALORE ROAD BELLARY - 583101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR KARKALA TALUK PRAJA SOUDHA KARKALA - 574 104 UDUPI DISTRICT. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480762026 NC: 2026:KHC:42799 WP No. 22034 of 2026 2. THE CHIEF OFFICER KARKALA MUNICIPALITY KARKALA - 574 104 UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. V.R. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.06.2026 AND TAKE ACTION (ANNEXURE-E). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Sri. V. R. Prasanna, learned counsel, appeared on instructions on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 2. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-authorities have not taken appropriate action for removal of the unauthorized auto-rickshaw stand situated in front of - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480762026 NC: 2026:KHC:42799 WP No. 22034 of 2026 the petitioner's house. It is contended that the said auto-rickshaw stand is causing obstruction to the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioner has approached the respondent-authorities by submitting representations as per Annexures-C and E. 3. Heard Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. V. R. Prasanna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that, on account of the auto-rickshaw stand being situated just opposite to the petitioner's house and as such the same has not only caused nuisance to the petitioner and his family members but has also obstructed access to the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480762026 NC: 2026:KHC:42799 WP No. 22034 of 2026 petitioner's property by blocking the front gate. Therefore, he sought interference by this Court. 5. Sri. V. R. Prasanna, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, submitted that the auto-rickshaw stand has been in existence for a considerable period and is being used as a parking stand by the auto- rickshaw drivers. Therefore, there is no obstruction caused to the petitioner in entering the land belonging to him. Accordingly, he submitted that the writ petition does not survive for consideration. 6. Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader also argued on similar lines as that of Sri. V. R. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, without - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480762026 NC: 2026:KHC:42799 WP No. 22034 of 2026 going into the merits of the case, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner as per Annexures-C and E, respectively, in the light of the observations made above and by taking into consideration the grievance urged by the petitioner regarding the obstruction, if any, to his access to the subject property. 8. The respondent-authorities shall consider the representations and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6